Scientific Fraud

[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

[SlimTrae]

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.

Wow. Heavy.

[El Kabong]

Climate Change is more dangerous than ISIS you know

[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?

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.

And that's great that you took the time to write all that out....but I'm afraid it doesn't discredit my view.....it just assumes your view is the right one.

But hey, I'm sure once millions die due to restrictions your side wanted to implement and anthropogenic global warming is found to be a total hoax or best result for you "miscalculated" you'll feel REALLY proud of yourself.

[El Kabong]

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - Telegraph



I was wrong the "science".....is perfect bcollins

[El Kabong]

The Paris Climate Talks Will Emit 300,000 Tons of CO2, by Our Math. Hope It's Worth It | WIRED

File this under irony

[El Kabong]

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...ing-yet-again/

...unsurprising

[El Kabong]

https://mitgsl.mit.edu/news-events/i...global-warming

Well if you say so