Bad Day For Trump GOP

[sartre play]

And you are a fool if you believe that.

This is not all about weather events, that's a very limited view

 

[Stann]

This is not all about weather events, that's a very limited view

Of course not , it's an exacting geological.science and denying it exists is absurd.

 

[tahuyaman]

And you are a fool if you believe that.

It’s a politically motivated hoax.

 

[Stann]

It’s a politically motivated hoax.

That's a dangerous belief to have for any person in power. It's one of the reasons trump is so dangerous.

 

[Delldude]

Of course not , it's an exacting geological.science and denying it exists is absurd.

Absolutely no misinformation coming from the scientific community, right?

 

[Stann]

Absolutely no misinformation coming from the scientific community, right?

99.9% is the truth ; very little get by the scientific method. Compare that to the abysmal record of so-called scientific data presented by those scientists supported by big oil. There's where most of the misinformation dubbed as scientific research comes from

 

[Delldude]

99.9% is the truth ; very little get by the scientific method. Compare that to the abysmal record of so-called scientific data presented by those scientists supported by big oil. There's where most of the misinformation dubbed as scientific research comes from

Think so?

Climate Misinformation from the United Nations​

Lapses of scientific integrity in climate science have become normalized. I no longer expect the community to care about obvious and egregious problems in climate science, even when documented in the peer reviewed literature. The community’s willful blindness has had a long time to develop muscle memory — More than 15 years ago I documented how the IPCC falsified a graph on disasters and climate change, inserted it into the IPCC assessment, and then lied about it when called out. No one cared then either.

A few weeks Sveriges Radio (Swedish public radio) released an English language version of its outstanding investigation into multiple exaggerations and falsehoods about climate change that have been promoted by the United Nations. Props to Swedish journalist Ola Sandstig and Sveriges Radio for conducting the investigation — they obviously care.

False claims and bad science are endemic to discussions of climate, but they should not come from the UN, which is the parent organization of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose job it is to call things straight on climate science. The climate science community should care that the UN has been systematically misrepresenting climate science, because it could affect how the IPCC is viewed, fairly or unfairly.

Climate Misinformation from the United Nations

I was speaking to a non-US non-climate beat reporter yesterday about undeniable issues of scientific integrity in climate science and he asked a question about the climate science community that got my attention: “And no one cares? Aren’t scientists supposed to care about such things?” Lapses of...

www.aei.org

You can run to your safe space and call it fake news but it's all sourced.

 

[Stann]

Think so?

Climate Misinformation from the United Nations​

Lapses of scientific integrity in climate science have become normalized. I no longer expect the community to care about obvious and egregious problems in climate science, even when documented in the peer reviewed literature. The community’s willful blindness has had a long time to develop muscle memory — More than 15 years ago I documented how the IPCC falsified a graph on disasters and climate change, inserted it into the IPCC assessment, and then lied about it when called out. No one cared then either.

A few weeks Sveriges Radio (Swedish public radio) released an English language version of its outstanding investigation into multiple exaggerations and falsehoods about climate change that have been promoted by the United Nations. Props to Swedish journalist Ola Sandstig and Sveriges Radio for conducting the investigation — they obviously care.

False claims and bad science are endemic to discussions of climate, but they should not come from the UN, which is the parent organization of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose job it is to call things straight on climate science. The climate science community should care that the UN has been systematically misrepresenting climate science, because it could affect how the IPCC is viewed, fairly or unfairly.

Climate Misinformation from the United Nations

I was speaking to a non-US non-climate beat reporter yesterday about undeniable issues of scientific integrity in climate science and he asked a question about the climate science community that got my attention: “And no one cares? Aren’t scientists supposed to care about such things?” Lapses of...

www.aei.org

You can run to your safe space and call it fake news but it's all sourced.

No there are exceptions to every rule , I don't think like you do. Yes , out of 88,000 studies that have been done on climate change you managed to single out a few of the .001% that are not valid. Kudos to you , nice try to misrepresent the whole truth. I have neither the time or patience to research those articles but I would bet they were funded by big oil or some other source with an agenda in mind other than telling the truth of the matter. It's called BIAS.

 

[Delldude]

I have neither the time or patience to research those articles but I would bet they were funded by big oil or some other source with an agenda in mind other than telling the truth of the matter.

Actually, you are, once again, wrong.

Roger Pielke Jr. is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he focuses on science and technology policy, the politicization of science, government science advice, and energy and climate. He is concurrently a professor emeritus in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder; a distinguished fellow at the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan; a research associate of Risk Frontiers (Sydney, Australia); and an honorary professor of University College London.

Before joining AEI, Dr. Pielke was a professor in the Department of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado Boulder, a visiting professor at the University of Oslo, a senior fellow at the Breakthrough Institute, and James Martin Fellow of the University of Oxford. He also worked as a scientist for the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.

Dr. Pielke oversees a popular Substack, the Honest Broker. He has been published widely in the popular press, including in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, and the Financial Times. Dr. Pielke has testified before the US Congress on many occasions, at the invitation of both Democrats and Republicans.

It's called BIAS.

 

[tahuyaman]

That's a dangerous belief to have for any person in power. It's one of the reasons trump is so dangerous.

Truth is not a dangerous belief.

 

[Stann]

Actually, you are, once again, wrong.

Roger Pielke Jr. is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he focuses on science and technology policy, the politicization of science, government science advice, and energy and climate. He is concurrently a professor emeritus in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder; a distinguished fellow at the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan; a research associate of Risk Frontiers (Sydney, Australia); and an honorary professor of University College London.

Before joining AEI, Dr. Pielke was a professor in the Department of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado Boulder, a visiting professor at the University of Oslo, a senior fellow at the Breakthrough Institute, and James Martin Fellow of the University of Oxford. He also worked as a scientist for the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.

Dr. Pielke oversees a popular Substack, the Honest Broker. He has been published widely in the popular press

Pitiful response. I looked up AEI , even attempted to find out where their funding comes from. Right-leaning think tank , neo-conservative , Christian conservative group , conservatism , all these words came up and did you know you can buy influence in it , for $250,000 you get in the Chairman's Circle. Obviously no bias there.

 

[Delldude]

Obviously no bias there.

Take AEI out of the equation and at the same time, your head out of your ass....

Roger Pielke Jr. is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he focuses on science and technology policy, the politicization of science, government science advice, and energy and climate. He is concurrently a professor emeritus in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder; a distinguished fellow at the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan; a research associate of Risk Frontiers (Sydney, Australia); and an honorary professor of University College London.

Before joining AEI, Dr. Pielke was a professor in the Department of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado Boulder, a visiting professor at the University of Oslo, a senior fellow at the Breakthrough Institute, and James Martin Fellow of the University of Oxford. He also worked as a scientist for the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.

University of Colorado is a liberal university.

University of Oxford is a liberal progressive university.

All these places he worked prior to AEI are loaded with liberal professors, as most colleges are.

Notice he specializes in the politicization of science?

 

[Stann]

Take AEI out of the equation and at the same time, your head out of your ass....



University of Colorado is a liberal university.

University of Oxford is a liberal progressive university.

All these places he worked prior to AEI are loaded with liberal professors, as most colleges are.

Notice he specializes in the politicization of science?

Please stop wasting your time and mine. Not interested. The man obviously has an agenda. No science with that.

 

[Delldude]

Please stop wasting your time and mine. Not interested. The man obviously has an agenda. No science with that.

You said you stand by the scientific method, which is exactly what he and others did.

Scientific method uses counter debate and views which were never welcome or allowed. So tell us who is biased?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The scientific method is a process by which the same conditions produce the same results.

DellDude's guy's work does not do that

Now the MAGA insane want to change the scientigic method.

 

[Delldude]

The scientific method is a process by which the same conditions produce the same results.

Scientific method welcomes opposing views and debate. That was never allowed and you know it.

Pointing out misinformation is countering existing data.

 

[Stann]

You said you stand by the scientific method, which is exactly what he and others did.

Scientific method uses counter debate and views which were never welcome or allowed. So tell us who is biased?

Nonsense , believe whatever you want. The debate was over 50 years ago.

 

[Delldude]

Nonsense , believe whatever you want. The debate was over 50 years ago.

I remember the coming ice age in the seventies........

 

[Stann]

I remember the coming ice age in the seventies........

View attachment 1091713

LOL , can't resist. I remember all 5 Ice Ages this world has had.

 

[Delldude]

LOL , can't resist. I remember all 5 Ice Ages this world has had.

Scientists claims.....science is always right according to you.