distortion of science

[rdean]

What does the right know about "science". The don't believe that "evolution" is science and scoff at education. Let's all give a big Sarah Palin "eye-roll".

 

[Si modo]

Here we have the other self proclaimed 'scientist' yapping about 'logic', yet not presenting a single peice of evidence to show the why the the warming we are experiancing is a chimera.

I think that you are Walleye are quite a pair to draw to. Self proclaimed scientists that eschew any presentation of real science.

APS -APS March Meeting 2010 - Event - Global Response to Global Warming: Geoengineering with Stratospheric Aerosols

Session B8: Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Redux: The Physics of Global Catastrophes and Global Countermeasures
11:15 AM–2:15 PM, Monday, March 15, 2010
Room: Portland Ballroom 255

Sponsoring Unit: FIP
Chair: John W. Clark, Washington University in St. Louis

Abstract ID: BAPS.2010.MAR.B8.4


Abstract: B8.00004 : Global Response to Global Warming: Geoengineering with Stratospheric Aerosols
1:03 PM–1:39 PM


Preview Abstract

Author:
Jonathan Katz
(Washington University)


Despite efforts to stabilize the atmospheric CO$_2$ concentration, it is possible that the climate system could respond abruptly with unanticipated catastrophic consequences. Intentional intervention (``geoengineering'') has been proposed to avoid or ameliorate such consequences has been proposed. One contemplated intervention would be the injection of artificial aerosols into the stratosphere to reduce the amount of shortwave (visible and near-IR) Solar radiation reaching the surface of the Earth. Natural volcanic injections of sulfate aerosols are known to produce short-lived (about a year) cooling, providing a ``proof of principle''. Artificial production and injection of aerosols involves a number of poorly understood physical and chemical processes, as well as a choice of aerosol material and injection method. I will outline some of these technical issues and unanswered questions.

Funny, at least the blog knew enough that this abstract was close to worthless. Here, Rocks. I've highlighted the value of your 'proof' (bold).

Yet, what you posted does nothing to refute what I said about your blog. They invoke 'consensus' (a logical fallacy, by the way) in the first line of the second paragraph and invoke rhetoric to argue AGAINST the Logic of Scientific Discovery. (I love the fact that I repeat myself, especially when it's in writing. )

Maybe you could attempt to refute what I actually posted, if you comprehend it at all, that is. Or, just keep making shit up for me. At least that's amusing.

And, I have to wonder who the hell reviewed this abstract, if anyone, with the presence of what is underlined.

Have a great day, dude. Those outside of reality usually do.

Have a great day yourself, posier. A scientist you are not. Adaquete proof of which you have just posted. Holy Roller Preachers speak in absolutes, scientists do not. In fact, the words you bolded will be present in almost all scientific articles.

Climate is far from completely understood. Yet the predictions that have been made so far have almost all been far too conservative. Two big freighters taking the Northeast Passage before 2010 was something no one predicted. The beginning of the outgassing of the Artic Ocean clatrates before mid-century was definately in no ones predictions. It has already began.

Then YOU say, "the science is settled".

You are cringeworthy.

 

[Si modo]

What does the right know about "science". The don't believe that "evolution" is science and scoff at education. Let's all give a big Sarah Palin "eye-roll".

I'm on the right. The 'absolutes' of the left are amazing.

BTW, you forgot to tell me that 6% of scientists are Republican.

 

[code1211]

What does the right know about "science". The don't believe that "evolution" is science and scoff at education. Let's all give a big Sarah Palin "eye-roll".

I'm on the right. The 'absolutes' of the left are amazing.

BTW, you forgot to tell me that 6% of scientists are Republican.

These are the ones, apparently, that self identify as Republican. The implication is that the others self identify as Democrats which is probably not the case.

Half truths, inuendo and outright lies are not the stuff that makes good science, but it is the stuff that makes biased politics.

I think we can assume that Dr. James Hansen would self identify as a Democrat. We can also assume that as the years pass, he will continue to reduce the amount of temperature rise we may expect from the rise of CO2.

The reduction of his temperature prediction will not reduce the amount of panic he recomends.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Consensus + Science = Epic Fail

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Oh, and Star Wars works!

You and Carl Sagan can go fuck yourselves you lying fucking assholes!

US 'Star Wars' lasers bring down ballistic missile

US 'Star Wars' lasers bring down ballistic missile | Science | The Guardian