Natural (Christian) Science versus Science - From Right Wing Christian Universities

[FurthurBB]

Using "science" as an example.

Or as I said, "Science verses Natural Science".

Oh, you mean "liberal science" like AGW, which doesn't have anything to do with science. Got it.

But every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

But it doesn't have anything to do with science. What dumb ass school did you attend, Daveboy? Ever attend a Physics class? Chemistry? Geology?

Or did you study magical cretin science as taught at places like Bob Jones.

That is true, even private religious universities.

 

[FurthurBB]

I said "classes", not "universities", you illiterate shithead.

How'd you do on the big Lady Gaga final? Did you get the question about her meat dress right?

Poor Daveboy, such an ignoramous. Hasn't the faintest idea about science or the people that do the disciplines. You just have to understand there are extremely stupid people in this world whose sole goal is to increase their share of stupidity. Daveboy is such a one.

Remember, Roxy, you were defending your AGW cult high priests for altering the data to fit the model.

That's not science, and no one with any knowledge of the scientific process would defend it.

They did not alter information. They were deciding what data sets were outliers. This is something we as scientists have to do every day and one of the places that things can and do go wrong. It is just than when people were looking for something suspicious they grabbed a hold of this because they didn't understand how science and experiments work.

 

[daveman]

Poor Daveboy, such an ignoramous. Hasn't the faintest idea about science or the people that do the disciplines. You just have to understand there are extremely stupid people in this world whose sole goal is to increase their share of stupidity. Daveboy is such a one.

Remember, Roxy, you were defending your AGW cult high priests for altering the data to fit the model.

That's not science, and no one with any knowledge of the scientific process would defend it.

They did not alter information. They were deciding what data sets were outliers. This is something we as scientists have to do every day and one of the places that things can and do go wrong. It is just than when people were looking for something suspicious they grabbed a hold of this because they didn't understand how science and experiments work.

No, they altered the data.

This says it all! Here is an excerpt from Hansens latest plea for help. This sort of verbiage only exists in the minds of the mentally challenged.i





"The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009)."



http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/notyet/submitted_Hansen_etal.pdf

If you defend that, you defend the bastardization of science to support an agenda.