97% Climate Scientists...

[polarbear]

What on earth is an "earth scientist". There are only 3 sciences
1.)Mathematics
2.)Physics
3.)Chemistry

How on earth did you come to that conclusion?

Biology isn't science?

Geology isn't science?

Astronomy isn't science?

Normally I would not even respond to this kind of bickering, that avoids the subject entirely and is supposed to be a "counter-argument"...but hey I need to run up my post count to 15.
Lets start with Astronomy...since when is that a separate science from physics?
Is thermodynamics or quantum mechanics a different science from physics where you were educated? How the heck did You manage to graduate from physics at Your college without having studied these physics chapters?
Almost but just almost, they same thing applies for Geology but that`s where it crosses the line and the method of proof starts to get wishy washy, but not quite as bad as "climatology".
You can call anything You want and end it with "-ology" if You claim you have "knowledge of". Like Religion..."Scientology" or "Theology".
Lets get to Biology...is that a science, no!
No more than if you observe people what they eat and how they breed as a tourist and then write a book when you get back home..the sames as Bio-"ologists" do about any other organism or living cell.
Where it does apply exact SCIENCE is when it runs into BioCHEMISTRY.
Or do You believe that amino acid seuquencing and electrophoresis was invented by Biologists?....or medical "science"..?
Who do You think determined the structure of Chlorophyll...a Bio-"logist".?????
Or could it be that is a product of one of the 3 internationally recognized exact sciences.
The medical art has tried for decades to get recognized as an exact science, did not succeed and have since not tried to acquire that status again.
Doesn`t matter, anyway, because today the truth does not matter any more, only what most people believe!

 

[rdean]

They were probably Republicans. 97% of scientists believe in "evolution". Only 6% of scientists are Republican. Who wants to bet that HALF of all Republican scientists DON'T believe in evolution?

No reputable scientist believes in anything related to his field. There are theories that fit the known facts bit than any other hypothesis. Belief is a religious expression.

Every so often Evolutionary theory gets turned on its head. Most significantly due to the discoveries in Africa between 1920 and 1960. Also due to the research of folks like Jane Goodall. Evolutionary theory today is unrecognizable as the same beast of William Jennings Bryans's day.

The 6% figure was a poll of AGW scamsters assembled at a meeting on the subject. It was not a poll of scientists in general. It was, it seems to from the evidence, a poll of religious cranks calling themselves scientists. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
One can not extrapolate from a poll of a cammora dubious characters and then assign belief to all persons in a class semi related, still less can you assign belief in an assertion where the question was not asked in the poll.

this has been pointed out to rdean several times, but he chooses to continue with his lies

WHAAAAT!

PEW research is one of the most respected, if not THE most respected research organization in the world.

The truth is that right wingers simply can't face the facts.

Come on guys, look at how the right rails against "evolution" and "climate change". And now right wingers are going after vaccinations? They go after the research that proves the "effectiveness" of balanced sex education over the failed policies of "abstinence only".

Because scientists are constantly "learning", right wingers say scientists can't "make up their minds". Not only does that "prove" the majority of right wingers don't understand science, they don't even understand how "learning" works.

I hate to have to be the one to point out the obvious, but come on, get real. Why would anyone in their right mind, think more than 6% of scientists would be Republican? Seriously. Why? If right wingers on this site are any indication of the average Republican, then certainly, 6% may be vastly overstated.

 

[rdean]

It`s not my intention to dump my opinions about these climate change theories on Y`all.
I know my limitations especially when it comes to debating. I did not major in English or political "science" nor can I twist words like a lawyer. I just so happened that I`m (was..now retired) a chemical engineer with Military service and have spent the better part of my life in the Arctic, winters @ 24 hours darkness and summers @ 24hrs blinding sunlight.
I have roamed the Arctic not just looking down from Hercs, Twin Otters and Choppers, but had both feet on the ground and even crawled into many ice caves. And dug in the gravel to feel the roots of tree stumps that pepper the landscape close to the Pole.
I took thousands of pictures, not all with the same Cam....You can grab one and sign it out and some were better than others. But I do think these pictures tell the real story what is happening at the North Pole and what is just plain B.S.
This forum has some rather awkward rules....You are not allowed to post any links till You made 15 posts. Sure I could 14 text boxes full of B.S. to qualify, but I know full well that the B.S. will be stuck in my face to "win" debates....because that`s the way this entire swindle "science" has been perpetrated since conception.
So, for now I`ll just refer to some pics which I have already uploaded to a newspaper in Germany on my personal Album. And I have to leave the "Youknowwhat" off and spell out the rest of the link, and when you re-combine the 2 & paste it in Your browser`s address bar You`ll have the picture that goes with the discussion.
F@##< ....I can`t even write hTtP,wWw with nothing else and this crap editor wraps me on the knuckles about these stupid 15 posts! What the hell is the bright idea behind that???

Anyway, here comes picture #1 and I wish an honest Geologist would finally come forward and tell all of us how many 1000 freeze thaw cycles it takes before entire mountain sides look like this:

community.augsburger-allgemeine.de/forum/members/bernhardb-albums-5502-sammelsurium-picture23858-sammelsurium.jpg

What..did all that happen since we have cars?

Next one is the Remus river, we go there lots of time because the fishing is pretty good.
I always preferred nosing around more and took this picture, had in mind to get an honest answer some day about this question:

community.augsburger-allgemeine.de/forum/members/bernhardb-albums-5481-noch+mehr-picture23749-noch-mehr.jpg

That river comes from a glacier just behind me from where I snapped the photo.
For how long has this glacier been melting to dig a river like that and form a sediment bank like that one on the right river bend, just before it goes into that Lake full of fish?
Did all that happen in the last 75 Years?

Next picture was taken form a little higher up same area...the "global warming melt" of arctic glaciers:


That picture makes 2 things obvious at the same time. That`s not really a "melt" that is happening here...The ice is shoved by sheer force of gravity as ice into the warmer lake water and quasi dissolves...and I don`t really care where on Ellesmere Island or Greenland You look almost everywhere that`s how these glaciers are "melting".

The second thing that`s rather obvious, is how the snow that formed these glaciers came from...it does not fall from the clouds like in the Yukon or Alaska , commonly known as "It`s snowing"...no almost all of that snow is blown in by furious winds in the winter months from the polar ice cap.
To convey this a little better:
First another picture:

That was "in broad daylight" in the winter on our base...no at that rare time it did not storm!...but notice the rope in the background?
Most of the time You have to wear a harness and clip to that rope else no one will ever find You again, and the snow blows so thick You literally cannot !!! see the hand before Your eyes or a strobe light just a few feet in front of You!!!!
But if You happen to be so unlucky as "being trapped" above in an aircraft ~ 1000 feet agl...there is a crystall clear star studded sky.....but the time will come when the fuel beepers come on and You will have to descend into that inferno and land...that`s why the surroundings of this base is littered with wrecked aircraft from Hercs, Griffins, DC 6es and even an old Lancaster from 1958. You cant` really charter a tourist "skidder" to fly there nor would You be allowed, this always was and still is a restricted area for military use. The international "climate station" appeared in a hurry, after a horrific crash blew the cover of secrecy what is really on this base, which had either been denied or lied about that it is "weather research station" and in order that the American and Canadian Public had not been lied to a real weather station had been slapped together inside 7 days...and later been improved...and is today the "International Polar Research Station"....
But AFB Trenton and SAC Thule control who is allowed to go there and who not.

Oh yeah...here are some of the many tree stumps, these are around Fort Conger, which is where 14 men miserably died when they tried to reach the North Pole:



Lots more of these all over the northern part of Greenland!

And now here is a real puzzle, I wish and so do many others who made these "rings"...
There are lots of these all around SAC Thule:

No there are no "Eskimos"...Inuit they are called today there. They don`t go that far north. The closest Inuit settlemnt is over 1000 miles as the crow flies south of us. We (the military) are the northernmost people on the face of this planet who live on Land at taht place...but someone made these rings...
And before anyone makes a wise crack about spotting some man made bricks in this ring...there are entire mountain sides of almost perfect bricks and shingles in all colors from red, to blue, green and brown....take a closer look at this picture, there are a lot of "bricks" and a lot of almost perfect "shingles":

It really sucks if You cant` even show a picture, because after this I don`t have a whole lot I want to say and rather sit back to see what thoughts You guys have about this material...don`t keep me waiting too long. Soon I`m planning to move back north again..I just don`t fit in where we are at the moment and where I returning to there are no phones and no Internet, but lots of glaciers!
Oh yeah do Polar bears drown or starve when the ice melts like it did every summer for X 1000 Years?...
Does he look staved to You...I have hundreds and hundreds of such polarbear pictures, they all looked pretty healthy to me, just like that one:

They LOVE SWIMMING!!!
Oh Gee, almost forgot to link to the pictures which make it pretty clear how different snow deposits here ...where it hardly ever snows as people in the south understand it we have mostly "snow dunes"...I guess You could call them "drifts" but they are pretty bis drifts, which form under their own weight Ice:

community.augsburger-allgemeine.de/forum/members/bernhardb-albums-5481-noch+mehr-picture23744-noch-mehr.jpg

Notice how sparse the snow is on one side and how deep (hundreds of feet) on the "lee-side":

community.augsburger-allgemeine.de/forum/members/bernhardb-albums-5481-noch+mehr-picture23750-noch-mehr.jpg

That`s not how "Donner Pass" looks were it dumps snow in the Wintertime..
It NEVER dumps snow up in the arctic..well hardly ever and the Mountains and the landscape tell You a story that spans who knows how many thousands of years.
Now I wish I would get some honest answers from a well proven and seasoned Geologist who does`nt smoke pot, how on earth these phony rising average temperatures have anything to do with how much blowing snow is trapped by these mountains and the terrain-turbulence. Even a Geologist should know, that the "colder" the snow is the easier the wind keeps stripping it from the mountains in Greenland + Ellesmere and then You have consequently less snow left behind to form glaciers.
And that applies summer and winter...it`s not that there is no snow in theses mountains in the summer...hey when the wind kicks up in the summer in these mountains you are blinded by snow, just like in a Sahara sandstorm!
Like I said, these "climatologists" say one thing , these mountains told me all these years I watched them an entirely different story


I am getting TOTALLY annoyed by this 15 Post B.S. I got flagged over and over again and had to go over it with a fine toothcomb till I found where this idiotic editor put a {UrL} where I never asked it too and then refused my post till I finally found it.
I don`t think I will continue posting here again, as if I have don`t any better things to do than putting up with B.S. Like that...so Bye You`all
It`s been nice knowing You

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn8YubD01sk&feature=related[/ame]

 

[DiveCon]

No reputable scientist believes in anything related to his field. There are theories that fit the known facts bit than any other hypothesis. Belief is a religious expression.

Every so often Evolutionary theory gets turned on its head. Most significantly due to the discoveries in Africa between 1920 and 1960. Also due to the research of folks like Jane Goodall. Evolutionary theory today is unrecognizable as the same beast of William Jennings Bryans's day.

The 6% figure was a poll of AGW scamsters assembled at a meeting on the subject. It was not a poll of scientists in general. It was, it seems to from the evidence, a poll of religious cranks calling themselves scientists. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
One can not extrapolate from a poll of a cammora dubious characters and then assign belief to all persons in a class semi related, still less can you assign belief in an assertion where the question was not asked in the poll.

this has been pointed out to rdean several times, but he chooses to continue with his lies

WHAAAAT!

PEW research is one of the most respected, if not THE most respected research organization in the world.

The truth is that right wingers simply can't face the facts.

Come on guys, look at how the right rails against "evolution" and "climate change". And now right wingers are going after vaccinations? They go after the research that proves the "effectiveness" of balanced sex education over the failed policies of "abstinence only".

Because scientists are constantly "learning", right wingers say scientists can't "make up their minds". Not only does that "prove" the majority of right wingers don't understand science, they don't even understand how "learning" works.

I hate to have to be the one to point out the obvious, but come on, get real. Why would anyone in their right mind, think more than 6% of scientists would be Republican? Seriously. Why? If right wingers on this site are any indication of the average Republican, then certainly, 6% may be vastly overstated.

no where did i say anything negative about Pew, dipshit
you just took their data and skew the **** out of it to make you claim
thats not Pews fault, its YOUR'S

 

[polarbear]

I should actually thank You for trying to sell almost everything you read in newspapers or see on TV as a science, because I can squeeze one more post point out of that.
Some here advise I should just post a dozen blah blah posts, but I think that just defeats the 15 Post anti-spam rule. If it`s just blah blah then I think there is no difference to Spam...it certainly ain`t information.
To You it might however be news how an exact science is INTERNATIONALLY defined...
and there are only the 3 I did mention that qualified to date.
To prove what is a scientific fact you have to be able to make EXACT predictions and these have to be 100% correct 100% of the time...
and what you stated has to withstand every scrutiny + counter experimentation...not censor it...and what You claim to be a scientific fact has to apply anywhere anytime in the Universe, not just most of the time or even sometimes...else it will not qualify as science.
Look at what length Astro-PHYSICS or Nuclear PHYSICS have to go through before what is merely a theory is accepted as a scientific fact.
My God if we would allow the exact sciences to be ruled by public believes we would still be trying to invent gear to communicate with the dearly departed like Elvis Presley...
Well some Biologists do claim they can communicate with a pot plant after they smoked some leaves.
And there are tons of people + newspapers who bought that too.
Do you really believe in the exact sciences You can say "most people agree...or most people believe...or 97% polled say...." and get away with it?....Like this Scharlatan "Greenhouse Gas/Global warming/Climate change" crap....These jerks have done nothing but that!....and how so many of the public consider them "Scientists" is a sad reflection of the achievements of "Progressive Liberal" Politics and their Opinion Mafia selling methods.
Can we get back to it now how many freeze thaw cycles these mountains had to go through so that solid rock is shattered like that...in the arctic, that is supposed to have been be a perpetual deep-freeze until we turned on the car ignition?.....Or why all these tree stumps that should not be there are there?
Or would You rather continue now by claiming I work(ed) for an Oil company?

 

[rdean]

this has been pointed out to rdean several times, but he chooses to continue with his lies

WHAAAAT!

PEW research is one of the most respected, if not THE most respected research organization in the world.

The truth is that right wingers simply can't face the facts.

Come on guys, look at how the right rails against "evolution" and "climate change". And now right wingers are going after vaccinations? They go after the research that proves the "effectiveness" of balanced sex education over the failed policies of "abstinence only".

Because scientists are constantly "learning", right wingers say scientists can't "make up their minds". Not only does that "prove" the majority of right wingers don't understand science, they don't even understand how "learning" works.

I hate to have to be the one to point out the obvious, but come on, get real. Why would anyone in their right mind, think more than 6% of scientists would be Republican? Seriously. Why? If right wingers on this site are any indication of the average Republican, then certainly, 6% may be vastly overstated.

no where did i say anything negative about Pew, dipshit
you just took their data and skew the **** out of it to make you claim
thats not Pews fault, its YOUR'S

Hey Sparky, you might want to visit the PEW site. At the end of their report, they go through the "methodology". It's an interesting read.

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

.

 

[DiveCon]

WHAAAAT!

PEW research is one of the most respected, if not THE most respected research organization in the world.

The truth is that right wingers simply can't face the facts.

Come on guys, look at how the right rails against "evolution" and "climate change". And now right wingers are going after vaccinations? They go after the research that proves the "effectiveness" of balanced sex education over the failed policies of "abstinence only".

Because scientists are constantly "learning", right wingers say scientists can't "make up their minds". Not only does that "prove" the majority of right wingers don't understand science, they don't even understand how "learning" works.

I hate to have to be the one to point out the obvious, but come on, get real. Why would anyone in their right mind, think more than 6% of scientists would be Republican? Seriously. Why? If right wingers on this site are any indication of the average Republican, then certainly, 6% may be vastly overstated.

no where did i say anything negative about Pew, dipshit
you just took their data and skew the **** out of it to make you claim
thats not Pews fault, its YOUR'S

Hey Sparky, you might want to visit the PEW site. At the end of their report, they go through the "methodology". It's an interesting read.

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

.

already have, dipshit
your take on the data is faulty
something they dont ever claim

 

[rdean]

no where did i say anything negative about Pew, dipshit
you just took their data and skew the **** out of it to make you claim
thats not Pews fault, its YOUR'S

Hey Sparky, you might want to visit the PEW site. At the end of their report, they go through the "methodology". It's an interesting read.

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

.

already have, dipshit
your take on the data is faulty
something they dont ever claim

What part of:

Party Affiliation among Scientists:

6% 55% 32%

Don't you get?

And look through their article. They mention it more than once.

You see? How can you have a debate with Right Wingers? They only see what they want to see. If they disagree, it's because it's a "lie".

 

[rdean]

I should actually thank You for trying to sell almost everything you read in newspapers or see on TV as a science, because I can squeeze one more post point out of that.
Some here advise I should just post a dozen blah blah posts, but I think that just defeats the 15 Post anti-spam rule. If it`s just blah blah then I think there is no difference to Spam...it certainly ain`t information.
To You it might however be news how an exact science is INTERNATIONALLY defined...
and there are only the 3 I did mention that qualified to date.
To prove what is a scientific fact you have to be able to make EXACT predictions and these have to be 100% correct 100% of the time...
and what you stated has to withstand every scrutiny + counter experimentation...not censor it...and what You claim to be a scientific fact has to apply anywhere anytime in the Universe, not just most of the time or even sometimes...else it will not qualify as science.
Look at what length Astro-PHYSICS or Nuclear PHYSICS have to go through before what is merely a theory is accepted as a scientific fact.
My God if we would allow the exact sciences to be ruled by public believes we would still be trying to invent gear to communicate with the dearly departed like Elvis Presley...
Well some Biologists do claim they can communicate with a pot plant after they smoked some leaves.
And there are tons of people + newspapers who bought that too.
Do you really believe in the exact sciences You can say "most people agree...or most people believe...or 97% polled say...." and get away with it?....Like this Scharlatan "Greenhouse Gas/Global warming/Climate change" crap....These jerks have done nothing but that!....and how so many of the public consider them "Scientists" is a sad reflection of the achievements of "Progressive Liberal" Politics and their Opinion Mafia selling methods.
Can we get back to it now how many freeze thaw cycles these mountains had to go through so that solid rock is shattered like that...in the arctic, that is supposed to have been be a perpetual deep-freeze until we turned on the car ignition?.....Or why all these tree stumps that should not be there are there?
Or would You rather continue now by claiming I work(ed) for an Oil company?

Yea, those darn "Progressive Liberal" Scientists and their "Progressive Liberal" Science.

Places like NASA and Silicon Valley, while they are hotbeds of "Progressive Liberal" Science, they are also hotbeds of "Progressive Liberal" innovation. In fact, it seems like ALL "hotbeds" of technology and innovation come from those darn "Progressive Liberals".

Without those darn "Progressive Liberals", we would BE Afghanistan. And if Republicans have their way, we still might be. Teach the "controversy". Because that's what it is, a "con".

 

[polarbear]

no where did i say anything negative about Pew, dipshit
you just took their data and skew the **** out of it to make you claim
thats not Pews fault, its YOUR'S

Hey Sparky, you might want to visit the PEW site. At the end of their report, they go through the "methodology". It's an interesting read.



.

already have, dipshit
your take on the data is faulty
something they dont ever claim

See?...What am I talking about, You do and have seen how this "science" conducts "scientific proof"..."The most respected blah blah agrees, blah said blah blah"...and nothing but.
They all fall for the buzzword college graduate Wizard of Oz spectacle...and will continue to do so, because there is no way to unscramble egg(brains) that have "green" fungus.

No way will they accept how often the outcome if the CO2 under a plexi- glass salad bowl with heat lamps and Wallmart Thermometer "experiment" got debunked since then.

That gay (You can`t say f@g any more) British Lead- "scientist" might threaten suicide again , as he has when the "average global temperature" hockey stick swindle was discovered, and at the same time a Canadian Geologist discovered how all the "experts" have agreed for decades how fast the glaciers will disappear, was out by a factor of what was it again 20x or so, and none of them have noticed that...but used that as a debate winning argument for Years!...Then came back with one press conference after another one, how excusable that was to make an error with where a decimal point is placed...we are all supposed to forget that!...ALREADY!

I always did wonder, how exactly do You calculate what the average temperature of a planet is. By averaging all the readings you take and most of them are from airport "Met-" Stations in big cities...or did they make sure that 7/10 of all these were taken evenly spread out over all our oceans?
CO2 IR absorption is warming the atmosphere, my God...(rumor has it he exists)
For ~20 bucks everyone can find out how atmospheric warming and cooling really works...if they only took the trouble.
Go to any airport that runs a flight school and ask for a ride in a glider.
1.Observe the thermometer they all use to "sniff out thermals"...these are updrafts caused by hot & humid air columns that can lift elephants in excess of 2000 feet per minute...
That is REAL HEAT ENERGY and it comes from the sun!
2. While You are at it let the pilot explain how he looks for these thermals.

First thing You will hear, that they are gone as soon as the sun is down.
Second You might notice that he is not trying to circle over a bunch of cars that "spew CO2" .
He looks for stuff like a large black area surrounded by moist green forest and similar conditions!...and avoids lakes etc!
As soon as he finds a good one get ready...You are in for a wild ride!
Could be, that one wingtip is still in the downdraft while the other one hits a violent updraft and You will despite full counter aileron do a roll.
After that You jaw might be jarred open when he gets it centered in the updraft of the hot and moist air column,...Because You can then experience some pretty serious G-loads.

Now do a little math and consider how much HEAT ENERGY comes for the sun at any given time and is absorbed BY THE DARK SURFACE BELOW....to heat air to hurl say a Schweizer 222 Trainer with 2 occupants, say 1500 pounds at a vertical speed > 2000 feet per minute skyward...
And we are supposed to believe that was because of a fractional difference in CO2 content 6 places behind the decimal point.
After he tops out with this thermal, take another look at the thermometer...depends how good the thermal was, you might not even have to, because the hot air that just gave you that wild ride is now so cold You might be shivering!...Pilots use standard laps rate of 3.5 degree F temperature drop per 1000 feet.
So, how does that hot air You just rode allegedly melt all the glaciers in Greenland?
I guess it must be that the air with all that CO2 car exhaust is so much heavier that it crawls along the ground from a Farmers Filed in South Dakota all the way to Greenland...if there was a Farmer driving around in a John Deer tractor and registers because of the Diesel exhaust on every "Global warming" scientists thermometer on its way to the North Pole!

 

[gunnyrogers55]

funny how after the 2008 elections the democrats never really have said much about global warming and haven been pushing to do what the wanted to do with environmental laws.

 

[polarbear]

Yea, those darn "Progressive Liberal" Scientists and their "Progressive Liberal" Science.

Places like NASA and Silicon Valley, while they are hotbeds of "Progressive Liberal" Science, they are also hotbeds of "Progressive Liberal" innovation. In fact, it seems like ALL "hotbeds" of technology and innovation come from those darn "Progressive Liberals".

Without those darn "Progressive Liberals", we would BE Afghanistan. And if Republicans have their way, we still might be. Teach the "controversy". Because that's what it is, a "con".

Sure and the shirt salesman Winchester invented the Winchester. Do You have any idea how it really works these days at almost any U- in Europe and North America...?
I am sure You DO NOT KNOW!!!
Maybe You did hear the phrase "it`s a publish or perish world" ....on campus.
Why don`t you try go there an try publish something that goes against the grain/agenda?
Wanna see how fast You get booted out...? I `ll make Your head spin!

 

[Baruch Menachem]

No reputable scientist believes in anything related to his field. There are theories that fit the known facts bit than any other hypothesis. Belief is a religious expression.

Every so often Evolutionary theory gets turned on its head. Most significantly due to the discoveries in Africa between 1920 and 1960. Also due to the research of folks like Jane Goodall. Evolutionary theory today is unrecognizable as the same beast of William Jennings Bryans's day.

The 6% figure was a poll of AGW scamsters assembled at a meeting on the subject. It was not a poll of scientists in general. It was, it seems to from the evidence, a poll of religious cranks calling themselves scientists. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
One can not extrapolate from a poll of a cammora dubious characters and then assign belief to all persons in a class semi related, still less can you assign belief in an assertion where the question was not asked in the poll.

this has been pointed out to rdean several times, but he chooses to continue with his lies

WHAAAAT!

PEW research is one of the most respected, if not THE most respected research organization in the world.

The truth is that right wingers simply can't face the facts.

Come on guys, look at how the right rails against "evolution" and "climate change". And now right wingers are going after vaccinations? They go after the research that proves the "effectiveness" of balanced sex education over the failed policies of "abstinence only".

Because scientists are constantly "learning", right wingers say scientists can't "make up their minds". Not only does that "prove" the majority of right wingers don't understand science, they don't even understand how "learning" works.

I hate to have to be the one to point out the obvious, but come on, get real. Why would anyone in their right mind, think more than 6% of scientists would be Republican? Seriously. Why? If right wingers on this site are any indication of the average Republican, then certainly, 6% may be vastly overstated.

This is why you would never be a scientists Deany. You have your conclusion before you start, and any element that challenges it is invalid.

First, you take a badly bungled poll by a political hack organization (How you get "Most Respected " is another fallacy right there, but we will have to come back to that later) and stretch it way out beyond what it purported to show.

It was not a poll of all scientists. It was a poll of folks who met at a politically motivated symposium. Since they were supposedly of a very small slice of the science universe (Climateologists) They didn't bother to survey biologists , anthropologists, geologists...... You can't go from a badly skewed sample and extrapolate to the science community at large.

What we have in your posts over and over again is appeals to bogus authority, circular reasoning, appeal to the antecedent as proof of the assertion....

Now the other problem you have is your sample of Republicans. Like me and Daveman and others. The sample of Republicans on this board (Admittedly not representative) belies your assertion that all republicans believe in Genesis. I am sure USArmy retired does, and a few others. But even here you would be hard pressed to get 30% of us to say Genesis trumps Darwin and Mendell. You toss in Jake Starkey, it gets even harder.

The Republicans you know show that your assertion that all Republicans are this way. If you expanded your universe of republicans it would show your assertions are even more foolish.

Now Polarbear has brought in some interesting information . He was up there looking at the glaciers. Dealing with them on an intimate basis. Rocky on the other hand is a steelworker in Portland OR living in a nice temperate place where the glaciers are only something he can see out of his window, but not anything he has to work with on a daily basis. So if we are going to have an appeal to authority, which authority should we go with?

 

[DiveCon]

Hey Sparky, you might want to visit the PEW site. At the end of their report, they go through the "methodology". It's an interesting read.

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

.

already have, dipshit
your take on the data is faulty
something they dont ever claim

What part of:

Party Affiliation among Scientists:

6% 55% 32%

Don't you get?

And look through their article. They mention it more than once.

You see? How can you have a debate with Right Wingers? They only see what they want to see. If they disagree, it's because it's a "lie".

what part of it wasnt a random sample of all scientist but a poll of a specific GROUP of PRO AGW scientists that you dont understand
no one would expect a PRO AGW group to have many republicans
you are an idiot

 

[polarbear]

Hey while we are at it discussing "Progessive Liberal" fledgling scientist research and sucking up to the Prof, why don`t You make a list of what came out of that "research" to date...
Second hand cigar smoke causes cancer would be right up top!
..and I`ll make up a list what came out of the research Labs of all these evil world polluting Industries...
What the F@@* had for example anyone from these "progressive liberal" fledglings scientists to do with say a cruise Missile...I have never met any of these say at Garett Air-research in Phoenix or say where solid fuel "doughnuts" are made for the shuttle boosters...just a whole lot of "outdated, anti-gay, ultra conservative right wing" cigar smoking old chemists.
But hey thanks, soon I`ll have my 15 posts and I`ll be able to stick YOUR face in some REAL stuff!
You know all that stuff just from TV and Hollywood movies, Wikipedia and Internet blogs... and have no idea how stuff REALLY gets done!
Hey look up CNN, a "scientist" has just proven there that the polar ice is too thin because Eskimos "have to eat"at MacDonalds and can`t get raw seal meat....which by the way Your "progressive Liberal University research" has said (~1978) we evil Industrialists have polluted with Mercury...
Only later to find out they had no idea what a reference beam on an Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer is supposed to be used for...
After that all this "Mercury poison" vanished like a miracle from the face of the earth and no one wanted to know how!
That`s what happens when "Environmental Scientists" f***k around with stuff that`s way over their head....they have been measuring NO2 fumes from the Nitric acid in which they dissolved their samples as "Mercury content"....
And You want to tell me what`s what...?....try again...I need 15 posts!

 

[DiveCon]

Hey while we are at it discussing "Progessive Liberal" fledgling scientist research and sucking up to the Prof, why don`t You make a list of what came out of that "research" to date...
Second hand cigar smoke causes cancer would be right up top!
..and I`ll make up a list what came out of the research Labs of all these evil world polluting Industries...
What the F@@* had for example anyone from these "progressive liberal" fledglings scientists to do with say a cruise Missile...I have never met any of these say at Garett Air-research at Phoenix or say where solid fuel "doughnuts" are made for the shuttle boosters...just a whole lot of "outdated, anti-gay, ultra conservative right wing" cigar smoking old chemists.
But hey thanks, soon I`ll have my 15 posts and I`ll be able to stick YOUR face in some REAL stuff!

you got it NOW

 

[skookerasbil]

Mankind produces less than 0.5% of CO2 which composes 0.04% of the total atmospheric composition. It is a weaker greenhouse gas than water vapor (4%) and yet.... our contribution is concluded to cause MASSIVE GLOBAL changes when our species and it's buildings only covers less than 5% of the whole globe on only 27% of the surface.

And you expect to get me to believe that is going to cause a change in the climate of an entire planet?

You still leave a tooth under your pillow for the tooth fairy don't you?

Thanks for trying, but none of these "scientists" have ever actually done some IR Spectroscopy. To date IR is used mostly for qualitative Analysis rather than quantitative.
Quantitative IR might work better if we were living on a planet without humidity. I wish I`d have saved a few IR scans that cover the spectral region where the only bands are where the molecular stretching and scissoring molecular bond vibrations are...superimposed with a scan of normal air with a trace of humidity...and all these "experts" would have to shut their faces for good.
The person You responded to has not even grasped that CO2 is because of that measured using Gaschromathography with F.I.D. or E.C.Detectors instead of IR.

Even if You were to use air from which every trace of moisture had been removed You would be hard pressed to detect CO2 at these low concentrations at extreme path length unless you crank the photomultiplier up to the limit...and then the noise level is more than double the signal level and You are just "measuring" bullshit.
IR works fine if You want to follow a chemical reaction and want to monitor if You detect Aldehyde, Carboxyl Groups etc etc, but God forbid there is even a trace of water in Your sample, forget about seeing these absorption bands.
The whole thing is a joke. It originated in the former East Germany, the DDR. They came up with all kinds of Propaganda schemes to show what criminals we were in the west.
With the CO2 they tried the "acid rain" scenario first. All forests are going to die, and then all the animals etc etc...because rainwater had a pH of ~6.
Only Problem was, that the best and purest de-ionized or distilled water also has a pH of ~6, because pH 7 is only a theoretical value form the square root of the H2O "p.K.a" 10 ^(-14)...and all it takes is somebody breathing in the same building then you have "acid water"...because the negative decade logarithm of the hydrogen g-atoms per liter was
the square root of 10 to the minus twelth power of 10 "acid" hydrogen g- ions in one liter of water...
F@@< do that one in parts per "Quazzillon" yourselv, I dont have the patience to sit here and type out all these zeros behind the comma how little "acid" Hydrogen was in that "acid rain"
My God it took years to explain that to the public and what the difference is between (acid)-neutralization value and the pH. The public still does not know the difference but the trees and animals did not die, so the CO2/acid rain doomsday scenario fizzed out...and out of the same former DDR Propaganda science came the CO2 "global warming /greenhouse gas" doomsday scenario.
They have it a little easier today, because most of the frormer Communist Party "Apparatschiks" have usurped their way to power, like Angela Merkel...and in the EU goes largely what Germany says. So now You have Your "Greenhouse gas disaster".
Anything that can destroy free enterprise will do...and science has nothing to do with it.

yup

 

[Big Fitz]

WHAAAAT!

PEW research is one of the most respected, if not THE most respected research organization in the world.

The truth is that right wingers simply can't face the facts.

Come on guys, look at how the right rails against "evolution" and "climate change". And now right wingers are going after vaccinations? They go after the research that proves the "effectiveness" of balanced sex education over the failed policies of "abstinence only".

Because scientists are constantly "learning", right wingers say scientists can't "make up their minds". Not only does that "prove" the majority of right wingers don't understand science, they don't even understand how "learning" works.

I hate to have to be the one to point out the obvious, but come on, get real. Why would anyone in their right mind, think more than 6% of scientists would be Republican? Seriously. Why? If right wingers on this site are any indication of the average Republican, then certainly, 6% may be vastly overstated.

no where did i say anything negative about Pew, dipshit
you just took their data and skew the **** out of it to make you claim
thats not Pews fault, its YOUR'S

Hey Sparky, you might want to visit the PEW site. At the end of their report, they go through the "methodology". It's an interesting read.

Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

.

DING! Hairnet strikes again!

 

[Big Fitz]

Mankind produces less than 0.5% of CO2 which composes 0.04% of the total atmospheric composition. It is a weaker greenhouse gas than water vapor (4%) and yet.... our contribution is concluded to cause MASSIVE GLOBAL changes when our species and it's buildings only covers less than 5% of the whole globe on only 27% of the surface.

And you expect to get me to believe that is going to cause a change in the climate of an entire planet?

You still leave a tooth under your pillow for the tooth fairy don't you?

Thanks for trying, but none of these "scientists" have ever actually done some IR Spectroscopy. To date IR is used mostly for qualitative Analysis rather than quantitative.
Quantitative IR might work better if we were living on a planet without humidity. I wish I`d have saved a few IR scans that cover the spectral region where the only bands are where the molecular stretching and scissoring molecular bond vibrations are...superimposed with a scan of normal air with a trace of humidity...and all these "experts" would have to shut their faces for good.
The person You responded to has not even grasped that CO2 is because of that measured using Gaschromathography with F.I.D. or E.C.Detectors instead of IR.

Even if You were to use air from which every trace of moisture had been removed You would be hard pressed to detect CO2 at these low concentrations at extreme path length unless you crank the photomultiplier up to the limit...and then the noise level is more than double the signal level and You are just "measuring" bullshit.
IR works fine if You want to follow a chemical reaction and want to monitor if You detect Aldehyde, Carboxyl Groups etc etc, but God forbid there is even a trace of water in Your sample, forget about seeing these absorption bands.
The whole thing is a joke. It originated in the former East Germany, the DDR. They came up with all kinds of Propaganda schemes to show what criminals we were in the west.
With the CO2 they tried the "acid rain" scenario first. All forests are going to die, and then all the animals etc etc...because rainwater had a pH of ~6.
Only Problem was, that the best and purest de-ionized or distilled water also has a pH of ~6, because pH 7 is only a theoretical value form the square root of the H2O "p.K.a" 10 ^(-14)...and all it takes is somebody breathing in the same building then you have "acid water"...because the negative decade logarithm of the hydrogen g-atoms per liter was
the square root of 10 to the minus twelth power of 10 "acid" hydrogen g- ions in one liter of water...
F@@< do that one in parts per "Quazzillon" yourselv, I dont have the patience to sit here and type out all these zeros behind the comma how little "acid" Hydrogen was in that "acid rain"
My God it took years to explain that to the public and what the difference is between (acid)-neutralization value and the pH. The public still does not know the difference but the trees and animals did not die, so the CO2/acid rain doomsday scenario fizzed out...and out of the same former DDR Propaganda science came the CO2 "global warming /greenhouse gas" doomsday scenario.
They have it a little easier today, because most of the frormer Communist Party "Apparatschiks" have usurped their way to power, like Angela Merkel...and in the EU goes largely what Germany says. So now You have Your "Greenhouse gas disaster".
Anything that can destroy free enterprise will do...and science has nothing to do with it.

::inches bridge of nose:::

yeah okay... I see pseudo-consensus science leaking out of your ears. We're good. You're not worth debating to. Talk to ole crocks. he speaks eco-libberish

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, well, now here we have the Conservative Neanderthals flapping yap about how dumb the scientists are while posting on the internet. Just can't get anymore ironic than that.

Pseudo consensus, dumb ass? Show me a single Scientific Society from any nation that states that AGW is not a fact. How about a National Academy of Science? A major University? I have posted this challenge many times, and all you fruitcakes do is resort to mindless derision, because there are none. Yes, there is the same overwhelming consensus among scientists concerning AGW as there is concerning evolution.