Scientific Fraud

[El Kabong]

He's not the one coming across as a joke here.

Alright p4pking, buy into Anthropogenic Climate Change despite knowing that the "scientific numbers" are changed on a whim.

That seems like the wisest idea.

[p4pking]

He's not the one coming across as a joke here.

Alright p4pking, buy into Anthropogenic Climate Change despite knowing that the "scientific numbers" are changed on a whim.

That seems like the wisest idea.

I'm not "buying" into anything. I'm not an ideologue, but I'm also not scientifically literate and therefore can't argue with, much less ridicule, people who are in good faith. I don't doubt there are countless examples of skewed numbers to support political beliefs or agendas, but it also seems like there is somewhat of a consensus in the scientific community which doesn't support your stance, which seems to be based on the same things. Asserting that the majority of scientists working in the field are more or less shills, without understanding the subject matter nearly enough to form your own opinion, isn't exactly the wisest idea either, surely?

[TitoFan]

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/20...achenbach-text


I posted a while back on this thread about a great article that came out in NG about climate deniers. This may have been it. It all goes back to extremist points of view. Climate deniers, no matter how solid the research is, or how good the numbers are, can always fall back on the catch-all excuse that everything's fake.... everything's fudged. There's a conspiracy against industry... against good ol' progress. No study will ever be good enough or real enough. On the other hand, there's no shortage of annoying doomsdayers, with whom a 10- minute conversation would be enough for anyone to want to slit their own wrists. Extremists... people with agendas and blinders on.... those are the worst types of people to have involved in any kind of argument. They unwittingly make the strongest cases for the opposite side.

It's a circus, I tell ya.

[El Kabong]

He's not the one coming across as a joke here.

Alright p4pking, buy into Anthropogenic Climate Change despite knowing that the "scientific numbers" are changed on a whim.

That seems like the wisest idea.

I'm not "buying" into anything. I'm not an ideologue, but I'm also not scientifically literate and therefore can't argue with, much less ridicule, people who are in good faith. I don't doubt there are countless examples of skewed numbers to support political beliefs or agendas, but it also seems like there is somewhat of a consensus in the scientific community which doesn't support your stance, which seems to be based on the same things. Asserting that the majority of scientists working in the field are more or less shills, without understanding the subject matter nearly enough to form your own opinion, isn't exactly the wisest idea either, surely?

Yup that's right, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain and listen to the great and powerful Oz.

[p4pking]

He's not the one coming across as a joke here.

Alright p4pking, buy into Anthropogenic Climate Change despite knowing that the "scientific numbers" are changed on a whim.

That seems like the wisest idea.

I'm not "buying" into anything. I'm not an ideologue, but I'm also not scientifically literate and therefore can't argue with, much less ridicule, people who are in good faith. I don't doubt there are countless examples of skewed numbers to support political beliefs or agendas, but it also seems like there is somewhat of a consensus in the scientific community which doesn't support your stance, which seems to be based on the same things. Asserting that the majority of scientists working in the field are more or less shills, without understanding the subject matter nearly enough to form your own opinion, isn't exactly the wisest idea either, surely?

Yup that's right, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain and listen to the great and powerful Oz.

I think you have good sense on a lot of things, and I'm not going to imply that you're some kind of dope because I disagree with you, would be nice to get the same courtesy given that I haven't even made a case one way or the other. What makes you think I'm even subscribing to anything, just out of curiosity? I have no idea how anthropogenic climate change(which is a ridiculous term as the climate always has changed) is, but I do have the utmost respect for science, and as I'm not well versed in it I'll respect the opinion of those who are over politicians who don't have any interest or motive in arriving at the truth. BCollins seems to know a thing or two on this subject, but he's a JOKE apparently. There's no reason to be such an affected political type, you're clearly smarter than that.

[El Kabong]

P4pking, I'm not saying you're dumb, I'm not saying you're ignorant, I'm just saying there's evidence of things that are specifically NOT SCIENCE being passed off as science.

Please look this over and see if you think it's kosher

"Subject: Re: Energy infrastructure fact sheet & KXL oped

Recirculating both the fact sheet and op-ed reflecting edits and comments from Jake, Nikki, and Joel. In answer to research: changed 20 to 40, and Trevor can provide calculations based on EIA data, if reporters need it, on the Mexico/Canada trade point. It isn't written up neatly in one place online, unfortunately. Joel, we pumped up the climate impacts but in discussing with Jake decided we do still need to address why she's making her position known, when she has previously said she will wait for the President to make a decision. Added a line about wanting to let voters know where she stands, and added a more expansive graf about making the US the leader in fighting climate change and becoming a clean energy superpower. Nipped and tucked elsewhere to keep the word count down. Knowing we are still working out rollout timing - comms, policy, political, do you clear these to go forward to the book? Thanks all."

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8440


That look on the level to you? Does that come across as science which is interested in factual evidence or does that come across as politicians rigging the system?


And bcollins coming back and attacking my post about the article "Should We Be Having Kids In The Age of Climate Change?" is bush league....I'm poking fun of the hubris shown by the media...."Should We Be Having Kids?"....who the absolute FUCK is the government or the media to tell ME or anyone else what they should or should not be doing in regards to having kids? And bcollins wants to defend that

Yes that is total clown shoes crazy, but hey I'm the one who is off my rocker, I'm the one making a bigger deal over things like that....does bcollins have kids? Does bcollins believe that other people should be able to have families? If he has no problem with others having families then why pick that post out of all the others to harp on?


I pick on the "science" when I see shit like "we pumped up the climate impacts" or like the emails from East Anglia where it clearly showed scientists fudging the data. Other times and MOST time I pick on the "journalists" who are driving a media narrative for politicians who simply want more power....and if bcollins took the time to read he might understand that, but he doesn't. He takes personal offense to me questioning those things...and the fucking sad part is, IF bcollins is indeed working with scientists and he doesn't care about the bullshit peddled by the media and politicians (and either he knows it's bullshit and doesn't care, or he's in too deep to see it for what it is) then he's a part of the problem not a part of the solution and it casts a shadow over any scientific work he might be a part of.

[TitoFan]

I don't normally talk for other people, but I don't think bcollins was defending the premise of not having kids due to climate change. I think he's always been focused on defending the scientists, and arguing with you that not all of them subscribe to data fudging, paranoia, or have some kind of hidden agenda. The not having kids due to climate change issue is ridiculous, and I'd bet that's pretty much unanimous among logical people.

[El Kabong]

I don't normally talk for other people, but I don't think bcollins was defending the premise of not having kids due to climate change. I think he's always been focused on defending the scientists, and arguing with you that not all of them subscribe to data fudging, paranoia, or have some kind of hidden agenda. The not having kids due to climate change issue is ridiculous, and I'd bet that's pretty much unanimous among logical people.

That's quite fair TitoFan, but bcollins can defend the scientists AND have a go at the ridiculous media who may very well twist and turn real science in order to sell more papers/create more ad revenue. Those positions are not mutually exclusive. But he didn't decide to do that did he?

It's not as if bcollins is an idiot, he can separate the science from the media. He could have said "Well that not having kids is really fucking idiotic and that article should be panned by any scientist worth their salt" but he didn't. He likewise doesn't separate politicians who bastardize (apparently) the science bcollins is so proud of....why?


Just seems to me that the only reason bcollins would not attack such is because he either agrees with it or he knows it's helping fund the "science" in which case the "science" is compromised.



I routinely post the most outrageous shit people on the Global Warming Alarmist side write and say and try to get the public to believe for a reason....it's over the top ridiculous. "Don't have children because the climate" The Syrian Civil War was caused by the climate? We're (humans) going to start brewing killer hurricanes like we have a fucking weather machine and we've got it set to "destroy everything"....but nah, bcollins doesn't say "Yeah man, there are some crazy folks out there" he just comes right at me and that doesn't really help matters does it, kind of makes him look like he buys into what those crazies are saying.

[bcollins]

I don't normally talk for other people, but I don't think bcollins was defending the premise of not having kids due to climate change. I think he's always been focused on defending the scientists, and arguing with you that not all of them subscribe to data fudging, paranoia, or have some kind of hidden agenda. The not having kids due to climate change issue is ridiculous, and I'd bet that's pretty much unanimous among logical people.

Yes. This. I tend to get a little verbose talking about this and forget to get right to the point

[bcollins]

P4pking, I'm not saying you're dumb, I'm not saying you're ignorant, I'm just saying there's evidence of things that are specifically NOT SCIENCE being passed off as science.

Please look this over and see if you think it's kosher

"Subject: Re: Energy infrastructure fact sheet & KXL oped

Recirculating both the fact sheet and op-ed reflecting edits and comments from Jake, Nikki, and Joel. In answer to research: changed 20 to 40, and Trevor can provide calculations based on EIA data, if reporters need it, on the Mexico/Canada trade point. It isn't written up neatly in one place online, unfortunately. Joel, we pumped up the climate impacts but in discussing with Jake decided we do still need to address why she's making her position known, when she has previously said she will wait for the President to make a decision. Added a line about wanting to let voters know where she stands, and added a more expansive graf about making the US the leader in fighting climate change and becoming a clean energy superpower. Nipped and tucked elsewhere to keep the word count down. Knowing we are still working out rollout timing - comms, policy, political, do you clear these to go forward to the book? Thanks all."

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8440


That look on the level to you? Does that come across as science which is interested in factual evidence or does that come across as politicians rigging the system?


And bcollins coming back and attacking my post about the article "Should We Be Having Kids In The Age of Climate Change?" is bush league....I'm poking fun of the hubris shown by the media...."Should We Be Having Kids?"....who the absolute FUCK is the government or the media to tell ME or anyone else what they should or should not be doing in regards to having kids? And bcollins wants to defend that

Yes that is total clown shoes crazy, but hey I'm the one who is off my rocker, I'm the one making a bigger deal over things like that....does bcollins have kids? Does bcollins believe that other people should be able to have families? If he has no problem with others having families then why pick that post out of all the others to harp on?


I pick on the "science" when I see shit like "we pumped up the climate impacts" or like the emails from East Anglia where it clearly showed scientists fudging the data. Other times and MOST time I pick on the "journalists" who are driving a media narrative for politicians who simply want more power....and if bcollins took the time to read he might understand that, but he doesn't. He takes personal offense to me questioning those things...and the fucking sad part is, IF bcollins is indeed working with scientists and he doesn't care about the bullshit peddled by the media and politicians (and either he knows it's bullshit and doesn't care, or he's in too deep to see it for what it is) then he's a part of the problem not a part of the solution and it casts a shadow over any scientific work he might be a part of.

Yes - I have a beautiful daughter. She's almost two. I would love it if the world she grows up in is better than the one I did, but the likelihood of that is low.

I chose that post because your response was to attack "SCIENCE". Your focal point is all wrong. It should have been "MEDIA."