PNAS an old fraud fave, achieves a new low

Discussion in 'Environment' started by westwall, Jul 28, 2010.

  1. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,948
    Thanks Received:
    7,964
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,686
    PNAS, the organization that old fraud, Chris and of konrad bow to the east for has published yet another silly article. I particularly liked Pielke Jr.s take on it.

    Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: Silly Science
     
  2. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,549
    Thanks Received:
    2,554
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,662
    Lies, lies and more lies. When have I ever cited PNAS? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
     
  3. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,948
    Thanks Received:
    7,964
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,686



    konrad,

    You my good friend are a hoot! Now what was that about lies and more lies?

    http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/122091-not-all-expertise-is-equal.html

    I believe you started the thread below...No? Why yes it is you that started that thread.

    Game. Set. And I believe that is Match as well!:cuckoo:
     
  4. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,549
    Thanks Received:
    2,554
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,662
    You didn't answer my question, westy. More distraction to put us off the track of your lies? I quoted a CBS story that happened to reference a PNAS paper. How is that bowing down to anyone? At least I have logic and scientific experience on my side. You only parrot things that you agree with, regardless of whether they make any sense. I'll go head-to-head with you anytime in a legitimate scientific forum. Make sure you wear your 'Depends'. :cool:
     
  5. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,948
    Thanks Received:
    7,964
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,686



    konrad,


    When presented with evidence that completely blows your juvenile attack against someone it is customary to apologise. You accused me of lying. I showed you (and the world for that matter) that yes indeed you had cited PNAS (which is what you challenged me to do), the fact that you havn't enough imagination to add your own thoughts and merely copied what the article said is not relevant. You started a thread that cited PNAS you claimed you didn't ergo you were in error. Your continued denial of said fact in evidence however now elevates you to old fraud status YOU ARE THE LYING PIECE OF SHIT HERE BUCKO!
     
  6. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    Don't forget this one.

     
  7. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,948
    Thanks Received:
    7,964
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,686


    Hi Bern,

    Thanks for that. I hadn't forgotten it. I was just waiting to use it in the further destruction of this particular intellectualy dishonest silly person.

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31FFTx6AKmU]YouTube - Election Night Special[/ame]
     
  8. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,466
    Thanks Received:
    5,411
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,307
    The effect of refugees crossing national borders in massive numbers is one of the predicted effects of a major climate change. To consider what would be done in that case in sane, insanity is failing to consider this in advance, and then get caught without any kind of policy or plan as it happens. Kind of like waiting for a deep sea oil well to blow out before making any plans on how to cap one.
     
  9. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,948
    Thanks Received:
    7,964
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,686




    Well gee old fraud we've only had 20 million or so come over the border illegaly to find work. This is just more ridiculous hyperbole you silly person. And once again PNAS is revealed as the ridiculous organization they are.

    Dr. Pielke Jr.s response is absolutely on point and further exposes PNAS as the moonbat organization it is...and that you love so much...interesting though how konrad is trying to distance himself from it...too bad for him that people around here have memories longer than that of a gnat.

    "To be blunt, the paper is guesswork piled on top of "what ifs" built on a foundation of tenuous assumptions. The authors seem to want to have things both ways -- they readily acknowledge the many and important limitations of their study, but then go on to assert that "it is nevertheless instructive to predict future migrant flows for Mexico using the estimates at hand to assess the possible magnitude of climate change–related emigration." It can't be both -- if the paper has many important limitations, then this means that that it is not particularly instructive. With respect to predicting immigration in 2080 (!), admitting limitations is no serious flaw.

    To use this paper as a prediction of anything would be a mistake. It is a tentative sensitivity study of the effects of one variable on another, where the relationship between the two is itself questionable but more importantly, dependent upon many other far more important factors. The authors admit this when they write, "It is important to note that our projections should be interpreted in a ceteris paribus manner, as many other factors besides climate could potentially influence migration from Mexico to the United States." but then right after they assert, "Our projections are informative,nevertheless, in quantifying the potential magnitude of impacts of climate change on out-migration." It is almost as if the paper is written to be misinterpreted.

    Climate change is real and worthy of our attention. Putting forward research claims that cannot be supported by the underlying analysis will not help the credibility of the climate science community. Even with the voluminous caveats in the paper, to conclude that "climate change is estimated to induce 1.4 to 6.7 million adult Mexicans (or 2% to 10% of the current population aged 15–65 y) to emigrate as a result of declines in agricultural productivity alone" is just not credible. The paper reflects a common pattern in the climate impacts literature of trying to pin negative outcomes on climate change using overly simplistic methods and ignoring those factors other than climate which have far more effect."
     
  10. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,466
    Thanks Received:
    5,411
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,307
    Sure the NAS is a ridiculous silly institution, as is the AGU, the GSA, and all those other silly scientific societies. One need only to listen to the rantings of our faux geologist to know all things.
     

Share This Page