Scientific Fraud

[El Kabong]

Great step one you acknowledge Greenhouse effects are a thing that can be at least approximated by mathematical models (there are no absolutes in real life sorry, that is the domain of religions)

Step two, do you acknowledge that the sun emits an amount solar radiation on the earth that provides energy in the form of heat?

Oh ffs....


Yes.....now please hurry up and respond with your next question(s) so I can rebut the conclusion you're going to try and steer me towards

[killersheep]

Great step one you acknowledge Greenhouse effects are a thing that can be at least approximated by mathematical models (there are no absolutes in real life sorry, that is the domain of religions)

Step two, do you acknowledge that the sun emits an amount solar radiation on the earth that provides energy in the form of heat?

Oh ffs....


Yes.....now please hurry up and respond with your next question(s) so I can rebut the conclusion you're going to try and steer me towards

I'm waiting for you to tell me which part of the model you disagree with. You keep talking around my question. Therefore, I have to go one step at a time.

Step two, do you acknowledge that the sun emits an amount solar radiation on the earth that provides energy in the form of heat?

[SlimTrae]

Great step one you acknowledge Greenhouse effects are a thing that can be at least approximated by mathematical models (there are no absolutes in real life sorry, that is the domain of religions)

Step two, do you acknowledge that the sun emits an amount solar radiation on the earth that provides energy in the form of heat?

Oh ffs....


Yes.....now please hurry up and respond with your next question(s) so I can rebut the conclusion you're going to try and steer me towards

I'm waiting for you to tell me which part of the model you disagree with. You keep talking around my question. Therefore, I have to go one step at a time.

Step two, do you acknowledge that the sun emits an amount solar radiation on the earth that provides energy in the form of heat?

Interesting question.
Not sure how far off track I'm taking you when asking this: Do you know much about that dude named Tesla from the early 1900's? Does his work in any fashion coincide to the discussion you are bringing here?
if not, my bad, I'll sit back & learn!

[El Kabong]

Great step one you acknowledge Greenhouse effects are a thing that can be at least approximated by mathematical models (there are no absolutes in real life sorry, that is the domain of religions)

Step two, do you acknowledge that the sun emits an amount solar radiation on the earth that provides energy in the form of heat?

Oh ffs....


Yes.....now please hurry up and respond with your next question(s) so I can rebut the conclusion you're going to try and steer me towards

I'm waiting for you to tell me which part of the model you disagree with. You keep talking around my question. Therefore, I have to go one step at a time.

Step two, do you acknowledge that the sun emits an amount solar radiation on the earth that provides energy in the form of heat?

Well we'll get to the partS I disagree with....but I'll continue to play along in hopes that the payoff will be good.

Already answered that question with a simple YES.....and I fail to see how I'm talking around the question.

So for review...
Question 1: Yes
Question 2: Yes

Next question

[El Kabong]

Claim of UK's 'Hottest Day on Record' Demolished By The Facts - Breitbart

and also....

'Mini ice age' coming in next fifteen years, new model of the Sun's cycle shows - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent


Global Warming hysteria followed by something suggesting Global Cooling might be next in store for us as the SUN....the what? The NOT MAN MADE STAR WE CALL THE SUN has a cycle change.

[TitoFan]

Although a few months old (March 2015), there is an interesting article on that edition of National Geographic magazine on science, called "The War on Science". It made for very interesting reading, and of course I thought a lot about this particular thread while reading the article. (Yes... I read the entire article and found it very interesting). The basic thread of the article is about today's skepticism about scientific theories and studies. Of course, this skepticism has always existed in some form or another throughout time... but as the article states... with the advent of the Internet, Google, and the smorgasbord of information now available to everyone... it seems more prevalent now.

I found the article to be well-written, without a huge slant one way or another. It's basically designed to make one think about things in a more objective, less critical manner.

Unless of course, it's just a massive conspiracy and undertaking by the scientific community to attack the skeptics.

[El Kabong]

The hysteria which people attack "deniers" with is ridiculous...."How old do you believe the Earth is?" ....like I've got to be some sort of Uber Creationist fanatic to even dare DOUBT the folks coming with this 'Day After Tomorrow' bullshit.

Ask these folks about solar cycles "Well, we're still learning a lot"....ah, but you're CERTAIN mankind is causing climate change? As them about El Nino/La Nina cycles "Well, we're still learning a lot"....but you're still 100% CERTAIN man is ruining the Earth....uh huh, thought so.

[Andre]

Big winter as in a mini ice age by 2030 the scientists said yesterday. By measuring the magnetic waves of the suns pulses they recon they got this forecast down to 97% accurate.

[SlimTrae]

Although a few months old (March 2015), there is an interesting article on that edition of National Geographic magazine on science, called "The War on Science". It made for very interesting reading, and of course I thought a lot about this particular thread while reading the article. (Yes... I read the entire article and found it very interesting). The basic thread of the article is about today's skepticism about scientific theories and studies. Of course, this skepticism has always existed in some form or another throughout time... but as the article states... with the advent of the Internet, Google, and the smorgasbord of information now available to everyone... it seems more prevalent now.

I found the article to be well-written, without a huge slant one way or another. It's basically designed to make one think about things in a more objective, less critical manner.

Unless of course, it's just a massive conspiracy and undertaking by the scientific community to attack the skeptics.

The internet is the big equalizer.

It is as if the business and political world have pocketed their own scientists.
So a discussion on science, to climate change is immediately questioned from the perspective of the source without considering the information given.
Darn the logic, if it didn't come from a source one respects.

I am confident there are scientists, meteorologists, to climatologists that work for the love of their craft and not for the politicization of their craft.

[SlimTrae]

Just a few left....

[TitoFan]

Although a few months old (March 2015), there is an interesting article on that edition of National Geographic magazine on science, called "The War on Science". It made for very interesting reading, and of course I thought a lot about this particular thread while reading the article. (Yes... I read the entire article and found it very interesting). The basic thread of the article is about today's skepticism about scientific theories and studies. Of course, this skepticism has always existed in some form or another throughout time... but as the article states... with the advent of the Internet, Google, and the smorgasbord of information now available to everyone... it seems more prevalent now.

I found the article to be well-written, without a huge slant one way or another. It's basically designed to make one think about things in a more objective, less critical manner.

Unless of course, it's just a massive conspiracy and undertaking by the scientific community to attack the skeptics.

The internet is the big equalizer.

It is as if the business and political world have pocketed their own scientists.
So a discussion on science, to climate change is immediately questioned from the perspective of the source without considering the information given.
Darn the logic, if it didn't come from a source one respects.

I am confident there are scientists, meteorologists, to climatologists that work for the love of their craft and not for the politicization of their craft.

I know Slim... but doesn't that create the famous "ostrich syndrome" in your opinion? All this easy access to information is great... but a bad side effect is that now we're all "experts" on everything and skeptical like never before. The good information gets lost with the bad. Take medical science, for instance. All of a sudden everyone's an expert on their own bodies and heath... to the point where doctors are routinely second-guessed. I'm not saying a little knowledge is bad... but to what degree? The same goes for climatology.

The aforementioned "National Geographic" article includes the following passage:

"Science appeals to our rational brain, but our beliefs are motivated largely by emotion, and the biggest motivation is remaining tight with our peers. "We're all in high school. We've never left high school," says Marcia McNutt. "People still have a need to fit in, and that need to fit in is so strong that local values and local opinions are always trumping science. And they will continue to trump science, especially when there is no clear downside to ignoring science.""


You combine the glut on information with this "need to fit in", local demographics, political beliefs, and special interest groups... not to mention the existence of some either incompetent and/or corrupt scientists (like there are in any profession).... and it's no wonder we've become a society of skeptics.