Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Global warming crusaders are offensive to real scientists

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Global warming crusaders are offensive to real scientists
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A closed mind is a closed mind, nothing to see here folks, move along.
Full Transcript of CNN special "Climate of Fear"

quote:
GORE: There`s not a single fact or date or number that`s been used to make this up that`s in any controversy. Isn`t there disagreement among scientists about whether the problem is real or not? Actually, not really.

BECK: Attention: You`re about to meet people that aren`t really real.

ROY SPENCER, PHD, FORMER SENIOR CLIMATE SCIENTIST, NASA: Politicians and some of the scientists like to say that there`s a consensus now on global warming or the science has been settled, but you have to ask them, what is there a consensus on? Because it really makes a difference. What are you talking about? The only consensus I`m aware of is that it`s warmed in the last century.

They completely ignore the fact that there`s this thing called the Oregon petition that was signed by 19,000 professionals and scientists who don`t agree with the idea that we are causing climate change.

JOHN CHRISTY, PHD, ALABAMA STATE CLIMATOLOGIST: One of the statements in the SPM was the statement that, if you boil it down, it says we are 90 percent certain that most of the warming in the last 50 years was due to human effects. I don`t agree with that. I think things are much more ambiguous.

BECK: Well, clearly these guys haven`t seen the movie. There was, you know, video of ice falling and pictures of snow melting and stuff. Perhaps we should meet some of Al Gore`s supporting cast members.

First up, Mount Kilimanjaro.

GORE: This is Mount Kilimanjaro more than 30 years ago and more recently. Within the decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro.

CHRISTY: Half of the snow was gone when Hemingway wrote "The Snows of Kilimanjaro." That tells you right there that the cause of that was not human effects on the climate.

There is no upward trend in the temperature for that region. The reason the snows are going away is not because of temperature changes, but probably because of a lowering of the cloud amount and less precipitation.

BECK: All right, how about another co-star? It`s the so-called hockey stick graph. This is the version shown by Al Gore. However, the original version used by the IPCC contained a wide margin of error not shown in "An Inconvenient Truth." Inconvenient, huh? Critics say there`s even more missing.

PATRICK MICHAELS, PHD, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA STATE CLIMATOLOGIST: There are two factors that most climatologists think happened that don`t seem to be included in it, which are the little Ice Age, which is a very cold period that ended in the late 19th century, and the medieval warm period, around 1000 or so.

CHRIS HORNER, "POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING": Since the third U.N. report, for which this was the smoking gun, there`s been a fourth U.N. report. Does anybody see a hockey stick in there anywhere? I can`t see you. It`s not in there. Guess what? It`s air-brushed out, in classic fashion, and they don`t even mention why it`s not here. What hockey stick? I didn`t see any hockey stick.


Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the global warming debate should be fined heavy carbon credits for blowing so much hot air from both sides of the issue.

We're not going to stop burning carbon until we run out or our energy provision paradigm makes adequate shift.

We won't do it to prevent a debatable fate.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Cool]

Yeah dude, global warming is really cool.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
CHRISTY: Half of the snow was gone when Hemingway wrote "The Snows of Kilimanjaro." That tells you right there that the cause of that was not human effects on the climate.
Um....What? Why not?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just wondering where these scientists that think global warming is not partially human caused are publishing. Last I checked, it wasn't in peer reviewed magazines. If there's no peer reviewed science saying that climate change isn't partially the result of human action, then there really is no argument among scientists. At least not practicing scientists.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
maybe the journals are turning down their papers since they are clearly nuts
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Everard -

I think the major questions are 'how much?', and 'what effect?'. While humanity must be affecting the environment somehow, acting without answering those questions is negligent.

Also, in terms of a response - sure, we want to encourage alternate power sources. We do not want to restrict the economy. Technological development driven by a booming economy (including those rising gas prices) is our only real hope of maintaining forward technological progress while preserving our environment. We want to take steps forward, not backward!

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gee, some people making a documentary managed to find some guys who don't like global warming? Clearly global warming must be bogus!

Especially if Roy Spencer (an advocate of Intelligent Design and ardent critic of global warming from way back), John Christy (another long-time critic of global warming an an associate of Spencer's), Patrick Michaels (who works for the Cato Institute, a think tank renowned for not being biased in the slightest [Smile] ), and Chris Horner (from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, another libertarian thinktank with pretty much the same bias and agenda as Cato) are the guys saying it.

Seriously, the fact that a documentary trotted these guys out to give an opposing view is supposed to be proof that there's a large body of global warming skeptics in the scientific community? It's almost as half-assed as the attempts by the Intelligent Design crowd to razzle-dazzle us into thinking that mainstream science isn't fully behind evolution by trotting out a list of as many evolution opponents and ID advocates with PhDs as it can find. And hell, with Spencer and Christy as part of the all-star lineup, it may as well be one of those lists of Intelligent Design advocates.

And it just makes the title of this thread all the more smugly hypocritical. "Real scientists?" A bunch of guys who've built their career on opposing global warming arguments and cherrypicking data to support their political views rather than looking at the data objectively and letting it shape their scientific opinion are real scientists? At least Al Gore's honest enough to admit that he's just a politician promoting what he thinks the facts are rather than masquerading as an impartial expert.

[ May 09, 2007, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: Rallan ]

Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
Just wondering where these scientists that think global warming is not partially human caused are publishing. Last I checked, it wasn't in peer reviewed magazines.

I've written rather heavily about why this is happening. In a nutshell, it's because scientists that question anthropogenic global warming are threatened with loss of funding or loss of tenure in the case of academic research. In the rare cases such studies are funded, they are passed over by scientific journals. Recently, there were calls for meteorologists that question global warming doctrine to be stripped of their credentials. AGW advocates have gone so far as to call for "Nuremburg style" trials (i.e crimes against humanity) for anyone opposing the doctrine. Given such threats to their livelihood and professional reputations, it's no wonder you see little or no published material contradicting the dogma. For links to all this, please see my previous posts in other threads on this subject.

quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
If there's no peer reviewed science saying that climate change isn't partially the result of human action, then there really is no argument among scientists. At least not practicing scientists.

The absence of these reports is not proof of the source of climate change - absence of proof is never proof of absence.

Here's and interesting theory on why we're seeing temperatures rise: we're using different paints on the weather stations that absorb more infrared radiation that may make it seem hotter than it really is. Previously, whitewash was specifically used to paint the weather stations because it it had some reflective infra-red properties but whitewash is no longer available and newer paints have different IR characteristics. Different enough to change the readings? Probably. How much? We don't know. Anybody going to check? Probably not - not worth the risk of losing your job or going on trial.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rallan:
At least Al Gore's honest enough to admit that he's just a politician promoting what he thinks the facts are rather than masquerading as an impartial expert.

I just read this line, ROTFLMAO. If you believe Al Gore (aka 'The Goreacle)on anything about global warming then you've really missed out on his recent shenanigans.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I've written rather heavily about why this is happening."


Your understanding of how articles get into peer reviewed journals, and WHAT gets into peer reviewed journals, is an understanding that cannot possibly have been developed if you had ever been in contact with the process.

If anyone had any research to show that human activity does not contribute to climate change (and frankly, thats an impossibility, given the heat trapping properties of CO2), they'd get TONS of research money. Especially from this administration... and ultimately, the federal government IS in charge of a huge chunk of research dollars. And they'd get published. Every climate journal would want the study. As well as most physics journals. Having a strong study that goes AGAINST the grain is about the one thing garunteed to get you published in the scientific field. The scientist who can strongly show humans are not involved in climate change becomes the next Einstein, or Darwin. The Journal that publishes the study instantly would become the most prestigous.

These journals are not controlled by a cabal of five or six people. They are mostly controlled by groups of people who come from very diverse fields, and backgrounds, and political ideologies. And to suggest that things are getting published because an idea is being quashed is not only to badly misunderstand the process of publication, but to badly misunderstand who is publishing the papers.

[ May 09, 2007, 06:39 AM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ilmari
Member
Member # 1672

 - posted      Profile for Ilmari   Email Ilmari   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
"I've written rather heavily about why this is happening."


Your understanding of how articles get into peer reviewed journals, and WHAT gets into peer reviewed journals, is an understanding that cannot possibly have been developed if you had ever been in contact with the process.

If anyone had any research to show that human activity does not contribute to climate change (and frankly, thats an impossibility, given the heat trapping properties of CO2), they'd get TONS of research money. Especially from this administration... and ultimately, the federal government IS in charge of a huge chunk of research dollars. And they'd get published. Every climate journal would want the study. As well as most physics journals. Having a strong study that goes AGAINST the grain is about the one thing garunteed to get you published in the scientific field. The scientist who can strongly show humans are not involved in climate change becomes the next Einstein, or Darwin. The Journal that publishes the study instantly would become the most prestigous.

These journals are not controlled by a cabal of five or six people. They are mostly controlled by groups of people who come from very diverse fields, and backgrounds, and political ideologies. And to suggest that things are getting published because an idea is being quashed is not only to badly misunderstand the process of publication, but to badly misunderstand who is publishing the papers.

Not only that, but this completely ignores that the global scientific concensus is that global warming is happening and that humans are having an effect on it (the extent of which is debatable). I could sort of buy that one nation could black list all the 'real scientists', but I can't believe that the academies of every western nation agree on a topic simply because they're afraid they'll lose funding - that would take a huge international conspiracy that strains credibility way past the breaking point.

A couple of decades back we had doctors and biologists (most of them funded by tobacco companies or people involved in the industry) tell us that there was absolutely no evidence that cigarrettes caused cancer - what we have here today is basically the same thing with global warming deniers.

- Il-Mari

Posts: 375 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tobacco companies are funding the AGW crowd? [Eek!]

I think you mean petrol industry, and that's been shown time and again to be a big crock of BS. Particularly when we have this: Globalists Love Global Warming

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
think you mean petrol industry, and that's been shown time and again to be a big crock of BS.
All of the credentialed experts in the quoted interview have a history of association with organizations funded by the petroleum or coal industries.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by Rallan:
At least Al Gore's honest enough to admit that he's just a politician promoting what he thinks the facts are rather than masquerading as an impartial expert.

I just read this line, ROTFLMAO. If you believe Al Gore (aka 'The Goreacle)on anything about global warming then you've really missed out on his recent shenanigans.
Really? The dude may exagerate his case (and badly I might add), but I don't think anyone would be able to accuse him of trying to hide his agenda and pretend that he's either impartial or an expert in the field [Smile]
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
MattP - Here’s a few questions that are more to the point:

If you are correct and certain people receive some funding from "industry", why does that make them any more or less reliable than those who receive "public" or "government" funding?

Governments don't have agendas? Is a government agenda any more or less trustworthy than private industry, or private citizen agendas for that matter?

Why?

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dagon
Member
Member # 3945

 - posted      Profile for dagon   Email dagon       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
All of the credentialed experts in the quoted interview have a history of association with organizations funded by the petroleum or coal industries.
Including Al Gore. Or does his association with Standard Oil not count?

What about the speech shown that had him speaking out against Kyoto? THAT was good--though that probably doesn't count either.

Posts: 119 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al Gore is not a credentialed expert. He's a politician and a pundit. We *expect* him to overstate his case.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jm0397:
MattP - Here’s a few questions that are more to the point:

If you are correct and certain people receive some funding from "industry", why does that make them any more or less reliable than those who receive "public" or "government" funding?

I was not making that argument. Just countering your assertion that petro influence was not a factor for the AGW crowd.

This group of individuals makes a living not by performing science, but by using their credentials and perceived authority to promote a position politically.

quote:
Governments don't have agendas?
What government agenda do you believe is driving the global consensus that anthropogenic global warming may be significant?
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
All governments, just by nature of being a government, seek to control and consolidate more power. Therefore, I expect governments to massage information and data for anything that gives them an excuse to exert more control over the people, the economy, and businesses.

GW fits that bill nicely so I am just as skeptical of government reports as I am of industry reports.

And, FWIW, I'm not saying there isn't also an agenda - if they indeed get petrol dollars - from those people either. Just that several of the more vocal AGW folks I've run across - as best I could tell (granted I didn't dig and dig and dig into all their funding) aren't petrol stooges.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sbkilb
Member
Member # 2726

 - posted      Profile for sbkilb   Email sbkilb   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I hate to do a post and run but I have finals.

I have personally experienced the bias against so called “deniers” in class for having the audacity to say that the theory of AGW is a “gasp” theory. One of many. The response I received was similar to what you would expect if I had said that Hiroshima was creative urban renewal. My esteemed PHD professor promptly and indignantly replied “AGW is not a theory!” But then again this is the same professor that taught the theory of environmental feminism with a straight face. Needless to say it was an interesting class.
I do not have a problem with global warming. The problem I have is I do not believe it is ALL mankind’s fault. This is what I would like to see pinned down. If we could determine how much of GW is due to our industry then we could figure out if the cost of our greenhouse emission reduction plans is worth the benefits of reductions in warming. Unfortunately it seems that anyone who dares question the “consensus” ult is compared to Hitler. Ha! The last time debate of this quality took place the losers were burned at the stake by the Vatican. All in the name of science of course.
I am sure you have heard of the west coast state meteorologist was fired for not following the official state dogma, er, commandments, umm, position. And of course the Weather Channel babe calling for an inquisition, er, I mean revocation of the credentials of other meteorologists not toeing the official party line.
This is not healthy debate. This is not how science is supposed to work. Science is not consensus. It is a competitive, cooperative and heated search for the truth. What I see now is an attempt to silence all dissent. In the long run we will all suffer for it.
The other problem I have with the “Believers” is that their solutions seem all pain and no gain. Even the Kyoto agreement, which everyone thinks is better than sliced bread results in what….? Trillions of dollars spent for a reduction of what % of one degree in 2100? This is a bargain? All pain, no gain. That money could be better spent.

Posts: 190 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The problem I have is I do not believe it is ALL mankind’s fault. "

Why is this a problem? I've yet to see anyone claim that it is.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But, Everard, it has to be all mankind's fault. That way, when they show that something else is increasing global temperatures, they can claim that it none of mankind's fault.

If they allowed the possibility that it might be some of mankind's fault, then they would have to admit that it may be useful to decrease our greenhouse gases to alleviate some of the problem. Which opens a whole realm of possible solutions, any one of which could affect the economy. So, to keep it simple, it has to be an all or nothing proposition.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Impeccable logic. Because the alarmists want to submit global warming to a cost/benefit ratio and eschew hyperbole and absolutist frightening statistics.

When poor Bjorn suggested as such, well you could feel the love of his peers all the way 'cross the Pond.

Last I heard it our "cut" of global warming was 25%, maybe less. If you have better figures, feel free to share. How much damage to the economy do you feel 2 hundereths of a degree warrents?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sbkilb
Member
Member # 2726

 - posted      Profile for sbkilb   Email sbkilb   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Evard-

Nah, it’s not an all or nothing situation. I just do not think that the draconian measures offered by the AGW supporters are worth the cost when compared to the small gains that their own #’s suggest. I also do not believe that our contribution to AGW is so great that if we do nothing we will get this apocalyptic melt down I keep hearing about.


Wayward-

Of course our emissions have some affect. Let’s accurately quantify this. Then we will have some measure of what we are getting in temp reduction when we do X at Y cost. We all make these type of decisions everyday. “What does it cost?” And “Is it worth it?” Is the basis of most the decisions we make. In this regard I think Bjorn was right. I agree with him there are a lot of other issues that could be solved for a fraction of the cost that some of the GW proposals threaten. And lets not even go into the value of immediate reduction of pain and suffering vs. OMG!!! 1’ C in a hundred years. The Horror! The Horror! (ala Apocalypse Now)

What is the current Kyoto cost so far by the way? $300 billion? In two years? If I remember correctly $3 billion is about what it would take to provide clean drinking water to everyone. There’s a billion people a lot better off. What should we fix next? Want to fund AIDS research at the current levels for the next 10 years? Or even better how about cancer for the next 60.

I think these type of quantifiable and fixable problems deserve our effort and attention a lot more than AGW.

Posts: 190 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not much.

However, it seems to still be getting warmer, and easily 80% of the stuff we can do to reduce carbon output is going to have a lot of other good payoffs.

So, why don't we all just agree to start with the measures that will be cheapest and have the most benefits in other areas while them PHDs work out the theoretical details?

If it turns out Global Warming was all a bunch of Phrenology on a global scale, heck, we'll still be more secure with lessened oil dependance, we'll still have cleaner air in Urban areas.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
sbkilb wrote:
And lets not even go into the value of immediate reduction of pain and suffering vs. OMG!!! 1’ C in a hundred years. The Horror! The Horror! (ala Apocalypse Now)

You are underestimating the difference even a single degree makes. Let me put it into perspective: the global temperature during the last major ice age was different by only about 7-8 degrees. A 1 degree jump in a hundred years is huge.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"So, why don't we all just agree to start with the measures that will be cheapest and have the most benefits in other areas while them PHDs work out the theoretical details?"

I agree. I put in (some) CFL's and watch what mileage my cars get. A small step.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Adam: "During the coldest periods of the Ice Age, average global temperatures were probably 4 - 5° Celsius colder than they are today." From this link.

Not so much disagreeing as clarifying.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
"I've written rather heavily about why this is happening."


Your understanding of how articles get into peer reviewed journals, and WHAT gets into peer reviewed journals, is an understanding that cannot possibly have been developed if you had ever been in contact with the process.

Your understanding of the situation is an understanding that could not possibly have been developed if you had ever been in contact with the links I've provided. You need to have the courage to read the other viewpoints - they're out there if you look but you have to look instead of relying on the media to feed it to you.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rallan:
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by Rallan:
At least Al Gore's honest enough to admit that he's just a politician promoting what he thinks the facts are rather than masquerading as an impartial expert.

I just read this line, ROTFLMAO. If you believe Al Gore (aka 'The Goreacle)on anything about global warming then you've really missed out on his recent shenanigans.
Really? The dude may exagerate his case (and badly I might add), but I don't think anyone would be able to accuse him of trying to hide his agenda and pretend that he's either impartial or an expert in the field [Smile]
Yes really, "the dude" is running his own get rich quick scheme (that's his hidden agenda) around carbon credits has exaggerated his case solely for political gain and lining his own pocket. He's a con artist.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not relying on the media to feed it to me.

What you have to show, G2, in order for your understanding to be correct, is not that one or two or 10 scientists didn't get their articles published.

You have to show, first, that a peice that doesn't get published is strong, scientifically. Then you have to show that it didn't get publised by every journal in the world. Then you have to show that it was submitted to every journal in the world. Then you have to show this is true for every peice that goes against the grain, and is strong scientifically.

As far as I can tell from the links you've posted on this topic, all you've shown is that some scientists have submitted some articles to peer reviewed journals that have not been published. You haven't shown that the science was good enough to be published, nor have you shown that they were submitted to every journal that covers the topics, nor have you shown that this has happened on more then an acecdotal basis.

I've READ your links, g2, and they arent convincing, because they don't show good science. Good science gets published in journals, where good science means the method is strong, not that the results agree with previous results.

And, frankly, I've been in contact with a couple of physics journals, and had some experience with teh selection process, and its nothing like what would need to exist in order for your hypothesis to be anything more then a conspiracy theory.

[ May 10, 2007, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
I've READ your links, g2, and they arent convincing, because they don't show good science. Good science gets published in journals, where good science means the method is strong, not that the results agree with previous results.

And, frankly, I've been in contact with a couple of physics journals, and had some experience with teh selection process, and its nothing like what would need to exist in order for your hypothesis to be anything more then a conspiracy theory.

I doubt you've read those links because some of them point to very distinguished researchers from public as well as private sources. You see, this is how you do it - anyone disagreeing must be doing bad science so you create your platform to assassinate their professional reputations.

And, frankly, I could care less about your "contact" with physics journals and what you think occurs during the selection process. I've provided the first hand experience of researchers that have been threatened if they continue to be "deniers". I guess anyone with another experience that differs from yours must be lying.

Here , check out the report of Christopher Monckton - or don't and rely on Al Gore and MSNBC, whatever helps you keep your faith intact.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So basically G2, we should take your word that your sources are pure gold, and your word that Everard's sources are pure bollocks, because you say so? What if Everard also ponies up a big fat .pdf file by a guy with a prestigious title that we're all too lazy to read? [Smile]
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't DO .pdf files [Mad] ! I'm not that much of a masochist.

I don't know about cherrypicking data, but I'm not making up what little mind I have left until I see a nice visual comparing volcanic activity (BEEEGO VOLCANO) and cigarette smokers' emissions (teensy-weeny cigarette).

And how, I might ask, can the weather get worse in New England? It's like asking, How can we make the history of the Catholic Church worse?

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1