Scientific Fraud

[Andre]

I like the way she handled the rude student but when she says the American experiment is a success, I think she should be eating her words regarding homeless etc and could do so more when the fires they began in the middle east blow backwards.

[El Kabong]

I like the way she handled the rude student but when she says the American experiment is a success, I think she should be eating her words regarding homeless etc and could do so more when the fires they began in the middle east blow backwards.

Fires who began in the Middle East? The United States inherited a dysfunctional Middle East. England set up the borders in the Middle East AND got the United States to go in to Iran to restore the Shah to power....that was our Ally saying "Hey, if you don't do this, well Iran will go Commie".


People like to critique our dealings in the Middle East....we'd rather not be there, we'd rather not....but if we weren't the people of the Middle East would drag us there to get involved. It's a classic case of you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. If we go to help we're causing trouble if we don't help we're being heartless.

[Beanz]

Seriously ? that is someone you consider an advocate of the rubbish you pretend to be science and debate You like it because she warms your ears and makes you feel cosy with her sophistry to America and the idea that it is such an overwhelming success everybody wants to get there. Unlike the Cubans who know the value of a good lifeboat in shark infested waters when they see one, despite drowning in a sea of evidence, you are now clutching at straws in a futile attempt to stop yourself going under.

McElhinney is not a scientist, you only have to look at how poorly attended that meeting is to see how relevant her opinion is. It 's like rummaging through the bins trying to find Michelin star food. She is an Irish 'Journalist' that works for the energy companies. I can see why she would appeal to you having said this

“Environmentalists…have this notion that the world would be better without humanity, and this is clearly not true – and it’s a very anti-Christian message… I mean, the Bible is really clear on this that humanity was to subdue all this amazing stuff we have around us and use it for our betterment.”

[El Kabong]

Well I'm just shocked that Greenbeanz has found something to disagree with me on.

[El Kabong]

[SugarBoxing]

without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of scientific sins

[El Kabong]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/...-a-false-path/


Irrational they say....political nonsense they say....surely they should be prosecuted for such slanders on those attempting to address the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

[bcollins]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/op...?emc=eta1&_r=1


So if you don't believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change then you're no better than a Nazi.....so sayeth Timothy Snyder.

Denying science imperils the future by summoning the ghosts of the past.

....yes......"science"

Remind us again Lyle - what are your qualifications for distinguishing science from "science"? If I recall, you are unable to perform a high school level regression analysis.

Oh that's right. You are a graduate of what real scientists refer to as Google U.

[El Kabong]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/op...?emc=eta1&_r=1


So if you don't believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change then you're no better than a Nazi.....so sayeth Timothy Snyder.

Denying science imperils the future by summoning the ghosts of the past.

....yes......"science"

Remind us again Lyle - what are your qualifications for distinguishing science from "science"? If I recall, you are unable to perform a high school level regression analysis.

Oh that's right. You are a graduate of what real scientists refer to as Google U.

The same "real scientists" that think a bogus consensus makes something fact?

[bcollins]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/op...?emc=eta1&_r=1


So if you don't believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change then you're no better than a Nazi.....so sayeth Timothy Snyder.

Denying science imperils the future by summoning the ghosts of the past.

....yes......"science"

Remind us again Lyle - what are your qualifications for distinguishing science from "science"? If I recall, you are unable to perform a high school level regression analysis.

Oh that's right. You are a graduate of what real scientists refer to as Google U.

The same "real scientists" that think a bogus consensus makes something fact?

Again, what are your qualifications to determine who is a "real scientist"? To determine that a consensus held by real scientists is bogus? How would you know the difference?

You write extremely well. Your arguments sound quite convincing to the layman. However, as you lack even the most basic scientific training, your arguments are specious. Your arguments embody the very essence of sophistry, they sound fantastic yet are in actuality vacuous ramblings without one single shred of reputable supporting evidence.

You present articles written by non-scientific journalists and point to experts who have sold scientific credibility to become corporate shills. Moreover, you lack any sort of expertise to discern good science from bad science, as you have amply demonstrated.

At the end of the day, all your arguments fall under the heading of one man's very vocal, very articulate, and very emphatic opinion - one that is hopelessly uninformed and biased. You have argued that debate is necessary to discern truth, and in this we agree wholeheartedly. The most crucial cornerstone of scientific query is that a proposed idea must withstand scrutiny from all sides in order to gain support from the scientific community.

You are, good sir, as my father would put it, quite full of shit. If you had any type of expertise at all, I would be more inclined to give your arguments due consideration. However, since your expertise lies in the propagation of the opinions of others who happen to support your point of view - without a single iota of understanding of the science underlying the matter - you will naturally understand when I group your lofty opinions on the topic in with those of a particularly virulent bowel movement.

Again, as my father would put it, when it comes to science you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

[Nameless]

When even the scientists from Exxon knew it would affect climate by 1978

Exxon's climate lie: 'No corporation has ever done anything this big or bad' | Bill McKibben | Environment | The Guardian

Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years | Environment | The Guardian

And 97% of the scientific papers about climate change agree that..well, it's happening.

Survey finds 97% climate science papers agree warming is man-made | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian


Just sayin.

[TitoFan]

The funny thing about this climate change tug-of-war between both sides is how people are failing to grasp what’s really important here. Leave it to human beings to make a circus revolving around whether man is contributing or not to the couple degrees difference in average Earth temperatures, or even more comical, whether this average temperature rise actually exists, or whether it’s just another fabrication by naysayers and doomsdayers.

What’s at stake here? Whether or not we continue pursuing more efficient energy usage, the use of renewable energy, better managing of our natural resources, including forests and other critical aspects of our ecology? As well as preserving exhaustible resources such as petroleum, which we know is not an infinite supply? Are these not worthwhile pursuits anyway? What the hell is all the back and forth about, other than to prove once again that if man is capable of anything, it’s to disagree over just about everything. It’s the proverbial glass half-full or half-empty conundrum all over again. Human beings will argue about everything… and then form coalitions, web sites, buy support from like-minded, articulate, educated fellow human beings… and proceed to ridicule those who dare oppose. It doesn’t even have to be important.

It becomes less about how can we can continually improve, and more about who yells the loudest, or is better at arguing than the other. We can’t seem to get out our own way. One can almost imagine human beings living in a great big, cosmic ant farm… being watched by superior beings eating popcorn and having a good laugh at our follies. Between the hysterical people on both sides of the argument, the “ostrich-head-in-the-sand” types, and those who belong to a certain group because they want to “fit in”, just like a fraternity or sorority…. I imagine it would be pretty entertaining.

[walrus]

One volcano or asteroid can make mans global warming impact very miniscule. And it will happen.

[TitoFan]

Ok. So let's continue trashing the place because hell.... an asteroid's gonna do it anyway.

[walrus]

Ok. So let's continue trashing the place because hell.... an asteroid's gonna do it anyway.

Just pointing out how quick things can change and how powerless we are