Scientific Fraud

[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]

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

[walrus]

What I'm finding quite bad is what we are doing to the oceans. Not the temperature but the noise and over fishing. We, the Chinese and others have put high tech sonar all over the worlds oceans and studies have shown its driving whales and dolphins crazy which is leading to mass beaching of the fishies. The Japanese, Chinese and others are catching everything they can to the point of extinction. I think we are much more harmful to the world the raising the temperature a few degrees

[Gandalf]

What I'm finding quite bad is what we are doing to the oceans. Not the temperature but the noise and over fishing. We, the Chinese and others have put high tech sonar all over the worlds oceans and studies have shown its driving whales and dolphins crazy which is leading to mass beaching of the fishies. The Japanese, Chinese and others are catching everything they can to the point of extinction. I think we are much more harmful to the world the raising the temperature a few degrees

Humans are the virus. Apparently the oceans are now 90% depleted and human population is of course rising exponentially. I guess they will have to genetically engineer more foods with minimal research and rather than just kill everyone directly have them be poisoned slowly and continue the population growth as it would be incorrect to tell stupid people that their mindless pleasure has serious consequences.

[walrus]

What I'm finding quite bad is what we are doing to the oceans. Not the temperature but the noise and over fishing. We, the Chinese and others have put high tech sonar all over the worlds oceans and studies have shown its driving whales and dolphins crazy which is leading to mass beaching of the fishies. The Japanese, Chinese and others are catching everything they can to the point of extinction. I think we are much more harmful to the world the raising the temperature a few degrees

Humans are the virus. Apparently the oceans are now 90% depleted and human population is of course rising exponentially. I guess they will have to genetically engineer more foods with minimal research and rather than just kill everyone directly have them be poisoned slowly and continue the population growth as it would be incorrect to tell stupid people that their mindless pleasure has serious consequences.

Yes if you impede on their happiness you would be a commie, or worse, a Catholic.

[El Kabong]

Leo DiCaprio isn’t the only climate change hypocrite | New York Post

[Gandalf]

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ys-us-agencies

Apparently we are cooking ourselves to death and I am not sure I disagree with that as I sit here with the cat hiding out from another day well above average and baking hot and unable to do very much. It's a rotten spot we have got ourselves into as there isn't a whole lot of time to make the necessary changes. The economic system is broke and relying on WMD and debt and politically nothing has really happened since 1982 to combat the issue of climate change. All in all it is looking like we are cooked. Carry on pumping that oil and start those wars to get it, eh chaps. Now they are even fracking lands that should never be fracked. We have almost zero consideration of the consequences of our actions.

I heard someone talking today about how our system is built upon a system of greed and how that system is meant to somehow work out all of the problems in some altruistic almost benign manner and of course that is impossible. If we were to just pool together with a system of compassion then that energy could very quickly transform things in a very different way. It's a lovely idea, but cynical old me doesn't think the old guard will let it go without nuking us all completely. As Mrs May recently declared, she has no qualms with nuking a hundred thousand people and did away with an office of climate change. That's the mentality the world has and that is why I think we are doomed. Even if Corbyn came through with the miracle uprising, how can you change an energy hungry world that won't stop expanding and guzzling?

[TitoFan]

[El Kabong]

Climate Change is more dangerous than ISIS you know

[El Kabong]

....having just watched that video I'm guessing that's from the "or Die" section of Funny or Die

[TitoFan]

It must be. There's nothing funny about disorders.