PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Dweyant on February 08, 2017, 10:23:48 AM
-
I know it is Fox news so it has to be fake, but interesting none the less.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/02/07/federal-scientist-cooked-climate-change-books-ahead-obama-presentation-whistle-blower-charges.html
-
The HOAX of significant, man made climate change is the globalists/statists wet dream. It promotes the disintegration of borders in order to enact the propose "fixes" which are always higher, or new taxes on individuals, and energy producers. Any tax or "fee" on energy producers, or companies that use energy in ways the government doesn't like will be directly passed on to the consumer. So you will pay no matter who gets taxed.
Thank goodness Trump is going to stop these economy killing policies, and our quality of life, and standard of living should start to turn around. Let China, Russia, and India curtail their carbon first!
-
B b b but SCIENCE and CONSENSUS!!!!!!!
-
B b b but SCIENCE and CONSENSUS!!!!!!!
....do not belong in the same sentence.
-
A minor volcano puts out more CO2 than all of mankind has produced in all of our existence. If mankind is going to cause all this destruction, how did Mt St Helens not boil off the seas?
I still do not has a rational answer to that.
-
A minor volcano puts out more CO2 than all of mankind has produced in all of our existence. If mankind is going to cause all this destruction, how did Mt St Helens not boil off the seas?
I still do not has a rational answer to that.
Sounds like a very inconvenient truth for the global elitist kings that want to rule us.
-
A minor volcano puts out more CO2 than all of mankind has produced in all of our existence. If mankind is going to cause all this destruction, how did Mt St Helens not boil off the seas?
I still do not has a rational answer to that.
Oh, but that was organic CO2.
-
A minor volcano puts out more CO2 than all of mankind has produced in all of our existence. If mankind is going to cause all this destruction, how did Mt St Helens not boil off the seas?
I still do not has a rational answer to that.
If you had bothered to use Google you would have quickly found that assertion to be false. Human generated CO2 dwarfs volcanic, rather than the other way around.
If you want to play a citation game, first you start with what you consider your most authoritative source that supports your claim.
-
Authoritative sources gave us the hockey stick and EVERY prediction from the loony bin left fake scientists with their fake alarmism and their fake solutions.
-
This is utter bullshit of the worst kind, unsurprising on Fox. Part of publishing anything in a journal like Science is very rigorous peer review by experts in your field. If you don't believe me trying publishing in Science sometime, anyone can. I haven't, my best has been Nature, and I can tell you that the peer review was scathing.
But no doubt you all know better because you read it on the internet. Whatever.
-
Follow the money. The "science" was bought and paid for, and NOAA, and NASA were utterly corrupted by the Obama Admin. It is scandalous. But Al Gore, and executives from Solyndra and a slew of others got RICH.
-
This is utter bullshit of the worst kind, unsurprising on Fox. Part of publishing anything in a journal like Science is very rigorous peer review by experts in your field. If you don't believe me trying publishing in Science sometime, anyone can. I haven't, my best has been Nature, and I can tell you that the peer review was scathing.
But no doubt you all know better because you read it on the internet. Whatever.
TRANSLATION: We are your betters.
We did not give you permission to question our incredible, deserving selves.
ANYONE who dares question is racist.
WE decide what is good for you and if WE decide to lie about the findings, it is for your own good.
Truth: A whistleblower has exposed the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for tampering with climate change data in order to promote the global warming agenda at the United Nations' Paris climate conference in 2015.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/13274/report-noaa-fudged-2015-climate-change-data-aaron-bandler?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=102516-podcast&utm_campaign=beingconservative
-
If you had bothered to use Google you would have quickly found that assertion to be false. Human generated CO2 dwarfs volcanic, rather than the other way around.
If you want to play a citation game, first you start with what you consider your most authoritative source that supports your claim.
Actually I did google it first - and going back, I see that I misread. My mistake.
-
I don't study the global warming issue, but my husband does. He was curious about it years ago and decided to find out what was really going on.
At the risk of being forever pummeled here by saying so, his IQ is scary high. He is a software engineer and not a professor, though! ;)
And he has yet to find any justification for concern. The models the political panic-button pushers are using cannot recreate observable trends. Temperatures tend to even themselves out, globally and regionally. And we have much more to fear as a civilization from cold than from heat. The whistleblowers know first hand that the issue is political. Scientists are speaking out more and more as they retire and don't face persecution by their fellows.
The public has been steadily catching on.
-
I don't study the global warming issue, but my husband does. He was curious about it years ago and decided to find out what was really going on.
At the risk of being forever pummeled here by saying so, his IQ is scary high. He is a software engineer and not a professor, though! ;)
And he has yet to find any justification for concern. The models the political panic-button pushers are using cannot recreate observable trends. Temperatures tend to even themselves out, globally and regionally. And we have much more to fear as a civilization from cold than from heat. The whistleblowers know first hand that the issue is political. Scientists are speaking out more and more as they retire and don't face persecution by their fellows.
The public has been steadily catching on.
Since your husband has not been anointed by academia, his opinion and his analysis are meaningless, as is his intelligence.
-
Since your husband has not been anointed by academia, his opinion and his analysis are meaningless, as is his intelligence.
Mmwaaahaha ... I am starting to see the merits of fighting back.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/02/welcome-to-alt-right.html
-
Since your husband has not been anointed by academia, his opinion and his analysis are meaningless, as is his intelligence.
But Becky is his peer, and she did review his opinion, so it is peer reviewed, at least he has that going for him.
-
I don't care what the environmental problem is, when the fixers tell me that the solution is tariffs, taxes and making it cost more, I know they are full of shit.
Edit:
Removed redundant phrase.....
-
I don't care what the environmental problem is, when the fixers tell me that the solution is tariffs, taxes and making it cost more is the solution I know they are full of shit.
and we are reminded about another characteristics of liberals:
Liberal response to every perceived problem: " tariffs, taxes and making it cost more"
-
and we are reminded about another characteristics of liberals:
Liberal response to every perceived problem: " tariffs, taxes and making it cost more"
And it is always a very, very inefficient, BIG GOVERNMENT solution they want to fund.
-
I don't study the global warming issue, but my husband does. He was curious about it years ago and decided to find out what was really going on.
Did he train for the better part of a decade? Did he publish novel findings in the field that were vetted by experts? Did he defend his work orally and in writing against seasoned experts years his seniors, any of whom could have taken exception?
At the risk of being forever pummeled here by saying so, his IQ is scary high. He is a software engineer and not a professor, though! ;)
Most of the software engineers of my acquaintance would take exception to that bolded, though they actually seem quite bright to me as well.
And he has yet to find any justification for concern.
And here's the crux of the issue. I've been following this for decades, and I knew personally some of the folks that contributed to the methodology Despite all that I don't feel myself expert enough to act as an expert reviewer for climatological literature. I can easily do so for findings of vertebrate embryology, genetics, cell biology, and stem cell biology, but certainly not climatology. Why your husband think s he's such an expert simply isn't transparent to me at all. How does he know who to believe? How can he critically evaluate scientific findings? I'm trained to do the latter, but have insufficient expertise to do so for a foreign discipline.
My own viewpoint is simple. As I've said, I've known some of the folks who do the research, and I know the scientific community. The folks themselves aren't a pack of liars whoring off government money. They do research and follow where the data leads, just like any scientist. To communicate their findings they have to show other experts in their field that they're correct, not an easy thing to do in any field. To get money they have to show other experts how they're going to use it to find out new things. I can't tell you how stingy the government is for research money.
Like I keep saying, if someone really has evidence that all the climatologists are wrong they can publish in the best journals. Really good journals love paradigm changing research. Those of you who say it can't be done are simply wrong, since I've done it myself.
-
The teensiest bit of searching turns up plenty of refuting material and qualified dissenting voices, Michael. One example from Carlos Slim's blog, even:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/us/skeptic-of-climate-change-john-christy-finds-himself-a-target-of-suspicion.html?_r=0
"There's a climate establishment. And I'm not in it."
Science is not a body of agreed-upon facts merely, it is a method. If one chooses not to make the leap of "belief and faith" in scientists, and in the media, and in the paradigm hung out as "settled," in my mind that one is a wise one.
-
The teensiest bit of searching turns up plenty of refuting material and qualified dissenting voices, Michael. One example from Carlos Slim's blog, even:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/us/skeptic-of-climate-change-john-christy-finds-himself-a-target-of-suspicion.html?_r=0
Science is not a body of agreed-upon facts merely, it is a method. If one chooses not to make the leap of "belief and faith" in scientists, and in the media, and in the paradigm hung out as "settled," in my mind that one is a wise one.
You can find an internet site to support whatever you want. You can claim the Earth is flat, or that the Pyramid of Ghiza was built by Martians, or the Moon landings were faked or any number of utterly silly things. When you can point me to such an article in a refereed peer-reviewed journal I might start listening. Part of critical thinking is understanding to whom you should be listening. I do have the capacity to evaluate how "trustworthy" a scientific source really is. Just a professional skill.
The fellow in the article does indeed seem to be the genuine article. He's extremely well published, though I can't find his funding sources (the institutional web site is pathetic). Sadly, he seems to spend far more time in front of Congressional committees than doing science. That said, he's published in some of the top scientific journals, thus the thought that he's somehow being "silenced" for his views is utter hogwash.
Moreover, you will never find a scientific endeavor that does not have its outliers. The fellow across the hall didn't believe in Evolution, he was and is a Creationist. Does that imperil Evolutionary science? Cary Mullis himself doesn't think HIV causes AIDS. on that basis will you go and get a transfusion from a sufferer?
-
One element of review is not to endorse the result but to endorse the process. When accusations of data fraud and model manipulation come up, there must be questions about whether or not real science is occurring. I find it particularly intetresting the number of times the climate computer models have been proven wrong. I beleive that a scientist who is personally motivated to find an unstable result will naturally build a model that produces such a result.
This is just like the political polling - once we saw the methods being employed and how samples were "corrected", we understood pretty clearly that the polls were meant to influence, not inform. Their predictice value turned out to be next to useless.
-
I don't feel myself expert enough ...
Neither do we.
-
Neither do we.
Insults are nothing new from you, and only demonstrate how bereft you are of cogent argument.
-
Insults are nothing new from you, and only demonstrate how bereft you are of cogent argument.
When the day comes that you post something devoid of bullshit, come back and speak up. We won't hold our breath.
I'm sure your triple zero IQ will have trouble deciphering this, but ask a seven year old. They can help you get the gist of it.
They can also help you tell the difference between the TV remote and a thermometer for when you pontificate your lies about MMGW.
-
When the day comes that you post something devoid of bullshit, come back and speak up. We won't hold our breath.
I'm sure your triple zero IQ will have trouble deciphering this, but ask a seven year old. They can help you get the gist of it.
They can also help you tell the difference between the TV remote and a thermometer for when you pontificate your lies about MMGW.
Insults are nothing new from you, and only demonstrate how bereft you are of cogent argument.
-
For someone who called everyone out here as fucking morons because they didn't buy your bullshit, whining about critical response is particularly hypocritical.
Since we are not in your fascist classroom, herr bigot, you have no power to suppress the free exchange of opinion and ideas. Keep trying though...
It is hilarious to watch you try and defend the academic fraud surrounding mmgw.
-
For someone who called everyone me out here as fucking morons because they didn't buy your bullshit, whining about critical response is particularly hypocritical.
Since we are not in your fascist classroom, herr bigot, you have no power to suppress the free exchange of opinion and ideas. Keep trying though...
It is hilarious to watch you try and defend the academic fraud surrounding mmgw.
'
Again, you have an utter inability to contribute anything novel of value beyond childish insults. Its fine by me, I've a thick skin.
-
'
Again, you have an utter inability to contribute anything novel of value beyond childish insults.
Pot, meet kettle.
-
Its fine by me, I've a thick skin.
..and a little, narrow, closed mind.