Climate-gate

No reasonable person disputes that CFCs caused damage to the ozone layer. I can no more take him seriously than I could someone who maintained that vaccines cause autism.

but the evidence is what is important

without the evidence , opinions are irrelevant
 
but the evidence is what is important

without the evidence , opinions are irrelevant

If he could prove that Rowland and Molina were wrong (their work won them a Nobel prize) it would be front page news world over. It would also mean that there is a globe girdling conspiracy that fabricated evidence that the ozone layer was thinning, and that it is now recovering. But he cannot, and is therefore relegated to crank status.

"Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. Einstein's view as to the magnitude of the deflection of light by gravitation would have been rejected by all experts not many years ago, yet it proved to be right. Nevertheless the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion."
 
If he could prove that Rowland and Molina were wrong (their work won them a Nobel prize) it would be front page news world over. It would also mean that there is a globe girdling conspiracy that fabricated evidence that the ozone layer was thinning, and that it is now recovering. But he cannot, and is therefore relegated to crank status.

"Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. Einstein's view as to the magnitude of the deflection of light by gravitation would have been rejected by all experts not many years ago, yet it proved to be right. Nevertheless the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion."

sometimes the so called " experts " are not only wrong , but in this case they don't even use the science , the real science , to back them up

the politics of climate change is and does over ride the science

Tim gets into all these aspects in his book
 
sometimes the so called " experts " are not only wrong , but in this case they don't even use the science , the real science , to back them up

the politics of climate change is and does over ride the science

Tim gets into all these aspects in his book

So in your view Politics trumps quantum mechanics? Got it. You willing to let a politician design your next computer?
 
So in your view Politics trumps quantum mechanics? Got it. You willing to let a politician design your next computer?

The thing is here , " Trippy " you have NO IDEA what I'm talking about

Hence to give some stupid response

By the way " trippy " don't hide your responses
 
The thing is here , " Trippy " you have NO IDEA what I'm talking about

Hence to give some stupid response
No, I give a relevant response that goes over your head leaving you with the impression that I don't know what you're talking about, when in fact I know exactly what you are talking about.

You said the politics of climate change is over-riding the science of climate change, however, quantum mechanics is part of the science of anthropogenic climate change. Hence my question about politicians designing your computer, something which also requires a knowledge of quantum mechanics.

By the way " trippy " don't hide your responses
Well, you got one thing right - I have no clue what so ever what you're going on about here.
 
but the evidence is what is important without the evidence, opinions are irrelevant
True and there is plenty of evidence. Most important is that the thinning grew sort of in direct relationship to the release of CFCs and then when they were replaced by other compounds for air conditioners, refrigerators etc. the Ozone layer started to recover. The fact that this is all exactly as the chemistry predicted is just more icing on the cake.
 
... the politics of climate change is and does over ride the science ...
Also true. minimizing the GW effects of burning oil is a multi-billion dollar interest of oil companies - why they made sure many on their payroll help draft the IPCC's reports.

Then 190 governments review the IPCC's drafts - Re-write parts of the text that may it nearly mandatory that they take action in the near term. Most have weak economics now and much prefer to do nothing. - It like their debt problems - "Lets let the next generation worry about it."

Few politicians give the ancient advise: "Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die" as they assume that "tomorrow" is well after they are out of office.
 
river said:
Tim gets into all these aspects in his book
If Tim's book contains a thorough and well reasoned repudiation of the idiotic essays on his website, it might be worth reading. Does it?
 
--It was not until the late 20th century that external refereeing came to be seen as an essential feature of a respectable scientific journal. While historians are still trying to work out the reasons for this change, the new emphasis on peer review (a term that itself originated after the Second World War) seems to have been partly a response to the increased public scrutiny that came with massive Cold War financial investments in science. --

http://time.com/81388/is-the-peer-review-process-for-scientific-papers-broken/

THE RELIGION OF PEER REVIEW

--- Despite a lack of evidence that peer review works, most scientists (by nature a skeptical lot) appear to believe in peer review. It's something that's held "absolutely sacred" in a field where people rarely accept anything with "blind faith," says Richard Smith, former editor of the BMJ and now CEO of UnitedHealth Europe and board member of PLoS. "It's very unscientific, really."

Indeed, an abundance of data from a range of journals suggests peer review does little to improve papers. In one 1998 experiment designed to test what peer review uncovers, researchers intentionally introduced eight errors into a research paper. More than 200 reviewers identified an average of only two errors. That same year, a paper in the Annals of Emergency Medicine showed that reviewers couldn't spot two-thirds of the major errors in a fake manuscript. In July 2005, an article in JAMA showed that among recent clinical research articles published in major journals, 16% of the reports showing an intervention was effective were contradicted by later findings, suggesting reviewers may have missed major flaws. ---

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/23672/title/Is-Peer-Review-Broken-/

-- The most startling was revealed last October when the work of Bell Laboratories' Jan Hendrick Schon came under scrutiny. Schon published 25 papers over the past 3 years. Of those, 16 have been declared to be false. This finding caused the prestigious journal Science to withdraw eight of his papers. --

http://www.infotoday.com/it/apr03/peek.shtml

Plenty more out there.

The religion of crank stupidism: the right to be stupid and to remain so indefinitely. Quit linking nonsense. Denigrating the scientific method from a position of ignorance is stupid.
 
Fanatic:
noun - 1. a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fanatic



http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/5/581.full.pdf



http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/seychelles-snail-thought-extinct-alive-25347700

The problem with the above quote is 'reappeared'. It didnt reappear. It was never extinct.



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/20/royal-society-in-trouble-over-false-extinction-claim-paper/

So 7 years ago problems with the paper were submitted and rejected.



http://landscapesandcycles.net/fabricating-climate-doom---part-3--extreme-weather.html

Parts one and two are an enlightening read, with updates to these essays posted at WattsUpWithThat. Updates include the maps of how close the thriving populations were to the Collinsia populations. Close enough that it is possible that all populations were mixed sibling caterpillars from the same egg laying parent. We are talking 300 feet apart.



http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/species/Erynnis-baptisiae

Adaptability. Its not just the Ediths Checkerspot that is known to incorporate new food sources.

Yes, the zeal of the SPAZ (sock puppet army of zealots) is well demonstrated in your post.

So I see you still are obsessing on Biologist Camille Parmesan Named 2013 Distinguished Texas Scientist by Texas Academy of Science

whereas your hero Jim Steele (or are you Steele, milkweed?) another fraudster posing as a climate and environmental expert is hawking a shitty book which rests largely on discrediting the distinguished Dr. Parmesan.

Exhibit A.

In addition to building the [SFSU] Sierra Nevada Field Campus's environmental education program, Jim Steele also taught several classes: World of Plants, Nature Study, Natural Sciences for Teachers, Bird Banding, and Bird Identification by Song.


Exhibit B.

The pioneers of chaos theory coined the term “butterfly effect” to suggest that a hurricane's formation could be affected by such unpredictable influences as the flap of a distant butterfly’s wings that changed the winds’ direction weeks before. Ironically, it was Dr. Camille Parmesan’s 1996 seminal Edith’s checkerspot butterfly paper titled " Climate and Species Range"1 that became the model for future peer-reviewed papers that blamed climate change for driving species northward and upward and causing species extinctions.

Exhibit C.

For promoting global warming theory, she subsequently earned an invitation to speak at the White House and became one of just four biologists to partake in third global climate assessment by the United Nations' Nobel-Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). By 2009, Parmesan ranked as the second-most cited author of papers devoted expressly to global warming and climate change.

:shrug:

Exhibit D.

I emailed Dr. Parmesan and asked for the locations of the extinct populations. After months without reply, I called. Caught off guard, she initially refused to share any data, but after more discussion offered the possibility of collaboration. She said she needed to hang up but promised to send some data. More than three years later, I am still waiting. So much for [physicist] Feynman's good scientist “trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible."

:eek:


milkweed is promoting the harassment of an acclaimed PhD biologist by nature trail guide Jim Steele, who is hawking a junk science book
 
milkweed said:
. . . peer review (a term that itself originated after the Second World War) seems to have been partly a response to the increased public scrutiny that came with massive Cold War financial investments in science . . .
The religion of crank stupidism: the right to be stupid and to remain so indefinitely. Quit linking nonsense. Denigrating the scientific method from a position of ignorance is stupid.

milkweed is attacking peer review because the cranks can't get past the referees.
 
Continued posting of bare links, without argument or other accountability, is often forbidden on moderated forums - the reason is that as rhetorical technique it is inherently dishonest.

after reposting a Photi link said:
curiously: Some folks just do not know when they are being really funny.
No kidding. The guy reposted one of Photizo's bare links, and then posted that.

It occurs to me to wonder whether irony blindness, like insulin resistance, can derive from over-saturating one's environment with the stuff.
 
Continued posting of bare links, without argument or other accountability, is often forbidden on moderated forums - the reason is that as rhetorical technique it is inherently dishonest.

No kidding. The guy reposted one of Photizo's bare links, and then posted that.

It occurs to me to wonder whether irony blindness, like insulin resistance, can derive from over-saturating one's environment with the stuff.

The guy reposted one of Photizo's bare links and trippy's also:
"I'll see your propaganda piece and raise you Protests at over 2000 locations around the world"

somewhere in the midst of reading (I think the queue for the NY stuff did it)
i was reminded of:
[video=youtube;kHmYIo7bcUw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmYIo7bcUw[/video]

seriously----read those links
darned entertaining stuff there
 
I'll see your propaganda piece and raise you Protests at over 2000 locations around the world

http://nypost.com/2014/09/22/climate-change-skeptics-call-out-marchers-hypocrisies/


http://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/533650166.jpg?w=884

"One planet
One people
One future" ---> Incorrect:

There will be a new earth.

"See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind...the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness…Then I saw "a new heaven and a new earth," for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away..."

There are Two people and Two futures.

"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few."

"Though they join forces, the wicked will not go unpunished; But the posterity of the righteous will be delivered."

For many are called, but few are chosen... Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.
 
Back
Top