The Death of Real Science

[Old Rocks]

That is correct, you are a faux geologist. You constantly make statement concerning that science that even non-geologists find laughable.

Your enormously dumb statement concerning plate tectonics and terranes. No geologist I know would ever make such a stupid mistake.

And your debate is not with me. It is with all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities that state that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.

 

[westwall]

That is correct, you are a faux geologist. You constantly make statement concerning that science that even non-geologists find laughable.

Your enormously dumb statement concerning plate tectonics and terranes. No geologist I know would ever make such a stupid mistake.

And your debate is not with me. It is with all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities that state that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.

Prove it old fraud. You make a big claim here. Show the class where I am wrong....I dare you!

And if you dig through this list of the various "mistakes", "errors", "lost data" you will find pretty much all of the organisations you list. I would trust the students at a good community college over many of the so called "scientists" you support.

http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/gate-blowup-come-on-in-gate-lovers/

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL!!!!!!

I link to the PNAS, the GSA, AGU, NASA, and NOAA. You link to a nonsense blog.

Come on, Walleyes, have you no science to contribute? Of course not, the scientists that back the denialists also claimed that smoking was not damaging to one's health.

 

[Oddball]

Well, gee...You don't think all those fools who've been using fudged data are actually going to admit so, do you?

 

[Gadawg73]

Dude, what scientific organization on earth is a valid research group and name others that are not.
What criteria do you use in deterimining their validity?

 

[Oddball]

My criteria involves people who aren't --willingly or unwittingly-- using figures that have been artificially massaged or made up out of whole cloth.

If a blogger links to reasonably credible sources or data, they're no less credible than a bunch of ivory tower poindexters who work for the Alphabet Soup Mob.

 

[edthecynic]

My criteria involvespeople who aren't --willingly or unwittingly-- using figures that have been artificially massaged or made up out of whole cloth.

If a blogger links to reasonably credible sources or data, they're no less credible than a bunch of ivory tower poindexters who work for the Alphabet Soup Mob.

BALONEY!!!

You used Spencer who got caught willingly using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift!!!!!

Your "criteria" involves any cooked figures that support your brainwashing! Either that or you are just tooooooo stupid to know what source or data is credible.

 

[westwall]

Dude, what scientific organization on earth is a valid research group and name others that are not.
What criteria do you use in deterimining their validity?

Any research group, or governmental entity that resorts to this (which the vast majority of AGW proponents have been caught doing) has no credibility.

A few humans make Victoria much warmer | Courier Mail Andrew Bolt Blog

 

[Oddball]

My criteria involvespeople who aren't --willingly or unwittingly-- using figures that have been artificially massaged or made up out of whole cloth.

If a blogger links to reasonably credible sources or data, they're no less credible than a bunch of ivory tower poindexters who work for the Alphabet Soup Mob.

BALONEY!!!

You used Spencer who got caught willingly using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift!!!!!

When did I do that....Like, once?

I bet you bookmarked that post.

 

[edthecynic]

My criteria involvespeople who aren't --willingly or unwittingly-- using figures that have been artificially massaged or made up out of whole cloth.

If a blogger links to reasonably credible sources or data, they're no less credible than a bunch of ivory tower poindexters who work for the Alphabet Soup Mob.

BALONEY!!!

You used Spencer who got caught willingly using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift!!!!!

When did I do that....Like, once?

I bet you bookmarked that post.

You cited his partner in crime at UAH John Christy as an "excellent witness" on page 5 of this very thread.

 

[konradv]

Apparently conservatives only believe in science that fits their preconcieved notions. Since they then believe everyone works that way, accusations of playing with data occur, when they're the ones doing the actual manipulation. From years of running sporting events, I've learned to watch those who constantly call others out for cheating. They're usually trying to distract you from their own.

 

[Oddball]

BALONEY!!!

You used Spencer who got caught willingly using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift!!!!!

When did I do that....Like, once?

I bet you bookmarked that post.

You cited his partner in crime at UAH John Christy as an "excellent witness" on page 5 of this very thread.

So, I didn't quote anything from Spencer himself, let alone the bad data in question.

So much for any credibility for your objection...Well, to virtually everyone but you and the enviroloon glee club.

Apparently conservatives only believe in science that fits their preconcieved notions. Since they then believe everyone works that way, accusations of playing with data occur, when they're the ones doing the actual manipulation. From years of running sporting events, I've learned to watch those who constantly call others out for cheating. They're usually trying to distract you from their own.

Project much?

 

[Gadawg73]

How many have taken a science class at the university level?

 

[edthecynic]

When did I do that....Like, once?

I bet you bookmarked that post.

You cited his partner in crime at UAH John Christy as an "excellent witness" on page 5 of this very thread.

So, I didn't quote anything from Spencer himself, let alone the bad data in question.

So much for any credibility for your objection...Well, to virtually everyone but you and the enviroloon glee club.

So it was Ok to use Christy, who got caught along with Spencer using the opposite sign to "correct" for diurnal satellite drift to create data to show global cooling, as an "excellent witness" because you didn't use Spencer in this thread even though you've cited Spencer in other threads.
BRILLIANT!
That makes you and Christy and Spencer perfectly credible.

 

[rdean]

Do you want me to list all the scientific discoveries and engineering advances that come from conservatives?.

Why yes I do..

It won't take long lol

I'm still waiting for "one".

 

[Old Rocks]

How many have taken a science class at the university level?

Well, the last science class I took at university level was Eng. Geo. 470/570.

But at the time I took that class, global warming was just something that only a few in geology even looked at. In fact, I had heard it mentioned only once at that time, and that by a post grad student in one of the early geology classes. He was invited to speak by a professor that was always throwing out the latest in geology for us. In the mid 60's, he was teaching Plate Tectonics in a class on the Geology of the Northern Cascades. The young man gave us a lecture on the affects of GHGs in the atmosphere, and made some predictions for 2100. Interestingly, almost all those predictions have already come to pass.

I have seen your posts on the coral reefs. For me, the observations of the glaciers in the Pacific Northwest and Rockies have been where I have personally seen the affects of global warming.

 

[Greenbeard]

How many have taken a science class at the university level?

I did a great deal of physics in my undergrad years (including some dabbling in climate dynamics in the geophysics department)--I had originally intended to go into it for a career.

Does seem like a relevant question, particularly with the questionable selection of sources in threads like these.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Science is really in a mess when people on both sides of any debate are full of crap.

I was just watching a video of a climate scientist yeasterday on Fora TV talking about reducing driving speeds to reduce CO2 emmisions.

When have climate scientists talked about the CO2 produced by manufacturing cars? This brings up planned obsolescence. If cars lasted twice as long we could make half as many and reduce CO2 production.

In the last 50 years haven't scientists noticed that the laws of physics don't change style from year to year and that human beings don't change shape?

PBS Discussions :: View topic - The Algebra of Economics

We are dealing with funny physics alright.

9/11 is the Piltdown Man Incident of the 21st century.

psik

 

[geauxtohell]

How many have taken a science class at the university level?

I did all the pre-med reqs (4 bios, 2 physics, two gen chems, two organic chems, biochem) and then the standard two years of basic medical science education in grad school.

I don't know anything about geology or climatology and global warming isn't really my cup of tea as I have never formally studied any of these. On matters of science that I personally don't know much about it, I defer to the consensus of the experts as is how the scientific field works.

What annoys me is the anti-global warming people attacking the basic scientific methodology and standards of doing things ("There is no such thing as a consensus!"). They are so desperate to disprove global warming (for whatever reason) they they want to claim the entire field is corrupt.

That's ludicrous. I might be inspired to buy some of the claims about global warming being some vast conspiracy, but I've noticed that, to do so, you have to make some pretty amazing logical leaps (i.e. the vast majority of climatologists are corrupt and are perpetuating a lie and cover up to secure grant money).

 

[westwall]

How many have taken a science class at the university level?

I did all the pre-med reqs (4 bios, 2 physics, two gen chems, two organic chems, biochem) and then the standard two years of basic medical science education in grad school.

I don't know anything about geology or climatology and global warming isn't really my cup of tea as I have never formally studied any of these. On matters of science that I personally don't know much about it, I defer to the consensus of the experts as is how the scientific field works.

What annoys me is the anti-global warming people attacking the basic scientific methodology and standards of doing things ("There is no such thing as a consensus!"). They are so desperate to disprove global warming (for whatever reason) they they want to claim the entire field is corrupt.

That's ludicrous. I might be inspired to buy some of the claims about global warming being some vast conspiracy, but I've noticed that, to do so, you have to make some pretty amazing logical leaps (i.e. the vast majority of climatologists are corrupt and are perpetuating a lie and cover up to secure grant money).

You are incorrect here my friend. It is us who are trying to get the AGW proponents to FOLLOW the scientific method. The scientific method says that you must give others your work so it can be tested by others. They refused, for 15 years they refused even though it was illegal for them to do so. The scientific method says that correlation does not equal causation but the AGW proponents allways ignore that little code.

There are many other examples where the AGW proponents have violated the scientific method. I suggest you look at some other sources than wikipeadia to further your research. One example of AGW fraud is the wonderful case of Wiliam Connolley and his abuse of the wikipedia system. He is responsible for rewriting 5428 articles to give them a AGW bias. He further removed 500 articles that he didn't approve of. This went on for years until he was finally booted as a wiki contributor. But that one case gives you an idea of how far they will go to push their case.

When you have to rewrite the articles of others that you don't agree with, there is a problem here.

I can go on but I think if you do some basic research from independant sources you will get a better idea of the issues at hand. Also the idea of consensus has been vastly overblown by the AGW proponents. It has recently come to light that they handpicked the scientists that they quoted in their "consensus" it was FAR from a random sampling of scientists.