The scientists reply

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Old Rocks, Sep 29, 2010.

  1. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,583
    Thanks Received:
    5,425
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,390
    Once more we have non-scientists such as Monkton and Watt lying and spreading misinformation before Congress. This time the scientists choose to reply.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-response.pdf

    On May 6, 2010, Mr. Christopher Monckton testified by invitation to the Select Committee on
    Energy Independence and Global Warming of the U.S. House of Representatives.
    Mr. Monckton, who is not a scientist, gave testimony that was in stark contrast to that of the
    scientists who were present at the hearing as well as the many official statements produced by the
    world’s premiere scientific organizations, about the growing dangers of climate change.
    Here, a number of top climate scientists have thoroughly refuted all of Mr. Monckton’s major
    assertions, clearly demonstrating a number of obvious and elementary errors.
    We encourage the U.S. Congress to give careful consideration to the implications this document has
    for the care that should be exercised in choosing expert witnesses to inform the legislative process.
     
  2. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,940
    Thanks Received:
    5,212
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,684
    Right, Congress should only consider Pro-Global Warming propaganda from approved "scientists".

    Yep.
     
  3. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,583
    Thanks Received:
    5,425
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,390
    When you have a cancer, you give equal weight to the opinion of a dentist to that of an oncologist? For that is what you are suggesting.

    Neither Watt nor Monkton are scientists, let alone scientists in the field of climatology. The reply to the Congressional testimony of Monkton is written by people that are actively doing research, and publishing that research, in that field.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  4. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,270
    Thanks Received:
    2,921
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,259


    LOL............Ummmm..........Old Rocks meant to say, "My Scientists!!!"


    Indeed...........for Old Rocks, the only scientists out there are the ones that agree with his views!! Follow these threads closely and it becomes painfully clear!!! He posts only the information from the "scientists" that are payed handsomely for the stuff they publish!!!
     
  5. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,270
    Thanks Received:
    2,921
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,259

    Nope s0n...........analysis fail................

    This whole debate is more akin to a cardiologist at one hospital wanting to put a stent into a patients artery and another cardiologist at another hospital wanting to do open heart surgery instead. Either way...........there is a vast amount of uncertainty!!!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    41,021
    Thanks Received:
    7,987
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,790



    And your scientists in the field of climatology can't recreate the weather (with their computer models that they have spent untold millions of dollars and 20 years on) that occured 10 days ago. You want us to trust them? To use your metaphor at least a dentist understands the use of anesthesia, and has spent untold hours learning how to keep a sterile field. Your boys don't even know how to wash their hands yet.
     
  7. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,583
    Thanks Received:
    5,425
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,390
    With no real scientists on your side of the debate, such drivel as you just posted is all you have, Walleyes.
     
  8. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    41,021
    Thanks Received:
    7,987
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,790





    That has to be the most inane response I've heard from you in oh, at least a week olfraud.

    All I can say is sure buddy, you can think that's true all you like. Fortunately for the planet, those who think (or can't as the case may be) your way are in the minority and falling fast as the smarter ones figure out truth.
     
  9. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,763
    Thanks Received:
    4,612
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,228
    Why are these scientist wrong when they have PHD's and Monkton is not even a scientist...It would be like me going before congress and saying that the earth is about ready to flip over. What points of the scientist do you disagree with and why?
     
  10. rdean
    Online

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,164
    Thanks Received:
    6,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +15,012
    Browsing the websites of different colleges, a prospective biology student finds an unusual statement on the page of the Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University:

    The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department.It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

    The Great Mutator - Jerry Coyne, The New Republic - RichardDawkins.net

    Bottom line - just being a scientist doesn't mean you are an expert in every field.
     

Share This Page