Meet the green who doubts ‘The Science’

[Big Fitz]

...then, of course, they have to "redefin(ing) the meaning of peer-reviewed literature" and wonder whether “Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels, PhD needs re-assessing?”, to browbeat and silence any voice which questions the anthropogenic gullible warming orthodoxy.

Hoax indeed.

A half century ago, 'peer review' was honorable and held an integral role in the advancement of science. These days it has become so corrupted as to be laughable and worthy of suspicion every time it is brought up. These days 'peer review' too often means nothing more than that it has been handed to two or three others that can be expected to agree with it. Even the IPCC limits their reports to those who will beat their drum while disingenuously citing a much larger body, and the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers is even more dishonest.

WHERE do you come up with this shit? Is this residual balls of toilet paper you ingested licking rodeo clown Glenn Beck's ass?

Here is Glenn Beck's 'resurch' teem...

Boy... when you got nothing... you sure have an entertaining nothing.

Stop showing family photos for attention.

 

[Bfgrn]

A half century ago, 'peer review' was honorable and held an integral role in the advancement of science. These days it has become so corrupted as to be laughable and worthy of suspicion every time it is brought up. These days 'peer review' too often means nothing more than that it has been handed to two or three others that can be expected to agree with it. Even the IPCC limits their reports to those who will beat their drum while disingenuously citing a much larger body, and the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers is even more dishonest.

WHERE do you come up with this shit? Is this residual balls of toilet paper you ingested licking rodeo clown Glenn Beck's ass?

Here is Glenn Beck's 'resurch' teem...

I get 'this shit' from those who are doing serious analysis of the stuff being put out there. I have posted quite a bit of it, but since you didn't read it then, I'm not going to waste my time posting any of it again. But those of us who actually read all the 'shit' available, and there is a LOT available, aren't coming up with the conclusions you seem to be reaching.

When you complete your remedial reading course, you'll probably understand a lot more than you understand now.

Here's what you do...tell me what my day to watch you is.

I challenge you to bring me the 'serious analysis'

 

[Oddball]

What "serious analysis" would you accept?

 

[Bfgrn]

Peter Taylor, author of “Chill:A Reassessment of Global Warming Theory: Does Climate Change Mean the World is Cooling, and If So What Should We Do About It?”

In his autobiography, ‘Shiva’s Rainbow’ Peter Taylor refers to how he obtained an Open Scholarship at Oxford to study biology, geology, chemistry and physics, “I had lied my way into the system” he writes. As for his scientific credentials, Taylor writes;

“In truth, in the scientific realms in which I worked, and gained by now, some standing, I was an impostor. I am not a scientist. Apart from my brief survey of tree-hole communities when I successfully correlated insect larvae diversity with circumference and aspect of the hole to the sun, which, in any case, had been done many times before, I have never ‘done’ science. In my work I have relied certainly upon an understanding of scientific theory and a memory for facts and relationships, and upon an instinct for the hidden and not yet known, but fundamentally I have been a linguist and an actor. My scientific degrees were linguistic exercises in critical review. My performances on television, in public inquiries, on tribunals and commissions, those of an extremely well-briefed lawyer, the ultimate actor. Which is not to say there is no dedication to truth.”

 

[Oddball]

That doesn't answer the question, Jethro.

I repeat: What evidence would you accept?

 

[Big Fitz]

Serious Analysis? None.

See Boncher's Truism on Faith:

"To a believer, no proof is necessary. To a skeptic, no proof is enough."

 

[Bfgrn]

That doesn't answer the question, Jethro.

I repeat: What evidence would you accept?

Hey pea brain, it wasn't meant to. Pay attention. You are Jethro DUD, not Foxfyre

I get 'this shit' from those who are doing serious analysis of the stuff being put out there.

 

[Foxfyre]

WHERE do you come up with this shit? Is this residual balls of toilet paper you ingested licking rodeo clown Glenn Beck's ass?

Here is Glenn Beck's 'resurch' teem...

I get 'this shit' from those who are doing serious analysis of the stuff being put out there. I have posted quite a bit of it, but since you didn't read it then, I'm not going to waste my time posting any of it again. But those of us who actually read all the 'shit' available, and there is a LOT available, aren't coming up with the conclusions you seem to be reaching.

When you complete your remedial reading course, you'll probably understand a lot more than you understand now.

Here's what you do...tell me what my day to watch you is.

I challenge you to bring me the 'serious analysis'

I doubt anybody here would want me to post all of it. So how about just three documents all containing some serious analysis? And I would appreciate it if we would not hear from you again on this subject until you have carefully read all of it:

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.web/product_files/Independent Summary5.pdf

Leaked climate change emails scientist 'hid' data flaws | Environment | The Guardian

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=1355

You are welcome, of course, to present any serious and credible sources that you believe can rebut what these three sources are saying.

 

[Bfgrn]

Why I Am Not a Conservative

By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

I have already referred to the differences between conservatism and liberalism in the purely intellectual field, but I must return to them because the characteristic conservative attitude here not only is a serious weakness of conservatism but tends to harm any cause which allies itself with it. Conservatives feel instinctively that it is new ideas more than anything else that cause change. But, from its point of view rightly, conservatism fears new ideas because it has no distinctive principles of its own to oppose them; and, by its distrust of theory and its lack of imagination concerning anything except that which experience has already proved, it deprives itself of the weapons needed in the struggle of ideas. Unlike liberalism, with its fundamental belief in the long-range power of ideas, conservatism is bound by the stock of ideas inherited at a given time. And since it does not really believe in the power of argument, its last resort is generally a claim to superior wisdom, based on some self-arrogated superior quality.

The difference shows itself most clearly in the different attitudes of the two traditions to the advance of knowledge. Though the liberal certainly does not regard all change as progress, he does regard the advance of knowledge as one of the chief aims of human effort and expects from it the gradual solution of such problems and difficulties as we can hope to solve. Without preferring the new merely because it is new, the liberal is aware that it is of the essence of human achievement that it produces something new; and he is prepared to come to terms with new knowledge, whether he likes its immediate effects or not.

Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it - or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs. I can have little patience with those who oppose, for instance, the theory of evolution or what are called "mechanistic" explanations of the phenomena of life because of certain moral consequences which at first seem to follow from these theories, and still less with those who regard it as irrelevant or impious to ask certain questions at all. By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position. Frequently the conclusions which rationalist presumption draws from new scientific insights do not at all follow from them. But only by actively taking part in the elaboration of the consequences of new discoveries do we learn whether or not they fit into our world picture and, if so, how. Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual assumptions shown to be incorrect, it would hardly be moral to defend them by refusing to acknowledge facts.

 

[Big Fitz]

Yep, direct questions have caused Bfgrn to fall back into his usual intellectual capacity of a squashed apricot. Nonsensical answers, ad homs and general libberish spouted fresh every hour.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yep, direct questions have caused Bfgrn to fall back into his usual intellectual capacity of a squashed apricot. Nonsensical answers, ad homs and general libberish spouted fresh every hour.

I'm giving really good odds that he won't read the three sources I gave him and won't understand them even if he does.

And he keeps posting that Hayek essay without having a clue what Hayek is all about or what Hayek is actually saying.

 

[Oddball]

That doesn't answer the question, Jethro.

I repeat: What evidence would you accept?

Hey pea brain, it wasn't meant to. Pay attention. You are Jethro DUD, not Foxfyre

I get 'this shit' from those who are doing serious analysis of the stuff being put out there.

Still doesn't answer the question that I posed....Speaking of not paying attention.

 

[Oddball]

Yep, direct questions have caused Bfgrn to fall back into his usual intellectual capacity of a squashed apricot. Nonsensical answers, ad homs and general libberish spouted fresh every hour.

I'm giving really good odds that he won't read the three sources I gave him and won't understand them even if he does.

And he keeps posting that Hayek essay without having a clue what Hayek is all about or what Hayek is actually saying.

He doesn't give a hoot in hell about Hayek or his philosophy....They're only useful to him in his flimsy attempts to divert, distract and obfuscate.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yep, direct questions have caused Bfgrn to fall back into his usual intellectual capacity of a squashed apricot. Nonsensical answers, ad homs and general libberish spouted fresh every hour.

I'm giving really good odds that he won't read the three sources I gave him and won't understand them even if he does.

And he keeps posting that Hayek essay without having a clue what Hayek is all about or what Hayek is actually saying.

Hey pea brain...WHAT Hayek is SAYING is IN the essay. It IS Friedrich August Hayek's own words...

 

[Oddball]

Right...Hayek's own words that conveniently fit your Fabian/progressive politics, as they relate to criticizing republicans.

Of course, you'd have a field day launching into your inimitable ad hominem freak-outs, should his musings on Austrian economics, ethics and the proper role of lawful and limited de jure government were the topic of conversation.

You're nothing, if not transparent.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yep, direct questions have caused Bfgrn to fall back into his usual intellectual capacity of a squashed apricot. Nonsensical answers, ad homs and general libberish spouted fresh every hour.

I'm giving really good odds that he won't read the three sources I gave him and won't understand them even if he does.

And he keeps posting that Hayek essay without having a clue what Hayek is all about or what Hayek is actually saying.

He doesn't give a hoot in hell about Hayek or his philosophy....They're only useful to him in his flimsy attempts to divert, distract and obfuscate.

DUD... Hayek hits the nail on the head numerous times in Why I'm Not A Conservative, his assessment of right wing morons like you. You are NO disciple of Hayek. You are the right wing moron Hayek dismisses in his essay.

You were dangerously close to the heart of the problem with climate change when you posted Freudian Projection. Yes, the heart of the problem IS psychological. The right wing mind doesn't believe climate change is real because it CAN'T, because is driven and controlled by fear and can't accept any ambiguity. The right wing mind desperately needs closure and will accept and swallow ANY contrary information, even if it is packaged and heavily funded by the very industries and cartels that make billions of dollars raping the planet. Their stated objective is to create obfuscation.

WHEN you morons finally learn climate change is real, it will be a horrible sight to see.

Banzai Cliff on the Island of Saipan
Thousands of Japanese soldiers and civilians jumped to their deaths at Banzai Cliff during World War II rather than be captured by invading American troops.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65EShYbK5ww]YouTube - 1944 SAIPAN - Japanese Women Choose Suicide[/ame]

 

[Bfgrn]

Right...Hayek's own words that conveniently fit your Fabian/progressive politics, as they relate to criticizing republicans.

Of course, you'd have a field day launching into your inimitable ad hominem freak-outs, should his musings on Austrian economics, ethics and the proper role of lawful and limited de jure government were the topic of conversation.

You're nothing, if not transparent.

YES DUD, they ARE Hayek's words. Words that DON'T fit conveniently into YOUR dogmatic mind. Hayek was so motivated to denounce, criticize and dismiss conservatism, he devoted a complete essay JUST on that subject.

 

[Big Fitz]

I reiterate. The intellectual capacity of a squashed apricot. All noise, no signal.

 

[Oddball]

Right...Hayek's own words that conveniently fit your Fabian/progressive politics, as they relate to criticizing republicans.

Of course, you'd have a field day launching into your inimitable ad hominem freak-outs, should his musings on Austrian economics, ethics and the proper role of lawful and limited de jure government were the topic of conversation.

You're nothing, if not transparent.

YES DUD, they ARE Hayek's words. Words that DON'T fit conveniently into YOUR dogmatic mind. Hayek was so motivated to denounce, criticize and dismiss conservatism, he devoted a complete essay JUST on that subject.

What Hayek has said has little-to-nothing to do with your Fabian socialist politics. You merely grasp at him in a cheap attempt to try and bludgeon republicans and so-called "conservatives" with his words, as though his philosophy and values are of any value to you.

That's why your quotations and recitations of Hayek carry zero impact...You only cherry pick the 1% that suits you, while rejecting the other 99%.

BTW, Jethro, I'm a libertarian not an alleged "conservative" and/or republican.

But all of that is irrelevant to the original question:

What evidence would you accept that would, in your "mind" (for lack of a better term), debunk and/or disprove the theory of anthropogenic gullible warming?

 

[Bfgrn]

Right...Hayek's own words that conveniently fit your Fabian/progressive politics, as they relate to criticizing republicans.

Of course, you'd have a field day launching into your inimitable ad hominem freak-outs, should his musings on Austrian economics, ethics and the proper role of lawful and limited de jure government were the topic of conversation.

You're nothing, if not transparent.

YES DUD, they ARE Hayek's words. Words that DON'T fit conveniently into YOUR dogmatic mind. Hayek was so motivated to denounce, criticize and dismiss conservatism, he devoted a complete essay JUST on that subject.

What Hayek has said has little-to-nothing to do with your Fabian socialist politics. You merely grasp at him in a cheap attempt to try and bludgeon republicans and so-called "conservatives" with his words, as though his philosophy and values are of any value to you.

That's why your quotations and recitations of Hayek carry zero impact...You only cherry pick the 1% that suits you, while rejecting the other 99%.

BTW, Jethro, I'm a libertarian not an alleged "conservative" and/or republican.

But all of that is irrelevant to the original question:

What evidence would you accept that would, in your "mind" (for lack of a better term) debunk and disprove the theory of anthropogenic gullible warming?.

AGAIN you use projection...the truth is DUD, you cherry pick the of 1% of Hayek that suits you. It is Hayek that bludgeons republicans and conservatives with his words.

You are NO libertarian, you are so far right wing that even far right republicans are called Democrats by you. Hayek was no right wing ideologue You have nothing in common with his core beliefs, except that 1% that suits you, because you want to protect your silver spoon