 |
Changing the subject again, we're not discussing ID. Even if we were my position on that is the same as climate change, we deserve an honest debate. You apparently think suppressing and manipulating data to support a predetermined position is science. You should really think again.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again Right Wingers:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I don't know how I could be more clear... However, to those of you who aren't listening, I'll give one more go...
I don't like cheaters... Let me say it again... I don't like cheaters... Having said that, my point ALL ALONG is that one little teeny university that got caught cheating, does NOT change the scientific consensus.
I heard tom say something about 53 scientists being able to create a worldwide consensus, and I asked for proof. Of course, none came. On its face, it's ridiculous.
excon
PS> I don't like cheaters.
PPS> Happy Thanksgiving.
Ex, it's not just one little teeny university, these are the most prominent scientists. NASA has been evading FOIA requests for years, Obama's science czar is involved, RealClimate.org is involved. RealClimate players include:
Gavin Schmidt:climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Dr. Michael E. Mann:Penn State University faculty, holding joint positions in the Departments of Meteorology and Geosciences, and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute (ESSI). He is also director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center
Caspar Ammann: climate scientist working at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).
Rasmus E. Benestad: physicist affiliated with the Norwegian Meteorological Institute (met.no) and the Oslo Climate Group (OCG)
Ray Bradley: Director of the Climate System Research Center (UMass Climate System Research Center) at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and a University Distinguished Professor in the Department of Geosciences.
The extent is just beginning to become clear.
P.S. Happy Thanksgiving, be blessed
Deliberate falsification is not part of the scientific method and any conclusions based on deliberate falsification should be suspect by a reasonable person as yourself.
If you can't connect the dots after the evidence supplied in just this op then you are being willfully blind.
Michael Mann ;the author of the discredited 'hockey stick ' graph is from Penn State ,as Steve pointed out .So it is not confined to a single "teeny university " . But his emails are included in the ones revealed because the CRU was filtering the data for the IPCC .
And this has been a systematic abuse.
In 2005 Dr.Phil Jones of the CRU was asked for the data and method he used for his claim of a 0.6ºC temperature rise since the end of the nineteenth century. Jones responded, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
Well yeah... that's what peer review is supposed to be about.
That work in academia overall has been wedded to a left wing agenda has always been suspected. Even Obama's economic adviser Larry Summers was booted out of Harvard for not being PC enough.
Michael Chricton predicted all of this in 2004 in his novel “State of Fear”.
It is all there, the bending of data, the fusion between ideologue scientists and government. When I read it, I thought he was exaggerating and taking literary license, but it turns out that he captured the deception accurately .
Instead of threatening to destroy the raw data ;why don't they publish their raw data ? Could it be that once they did that anyone could plot it on a graph and reveal the fraud they've advanced like the Climate Science Coalition did in New Zealand ? I think so.
The owness is now on legitimate science to repudiate this lest they lose all credibility. If I was a scientist I would be outraged at this because it reflects negatively on the whole discipline.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You bias's are showing once again. Can't have people being educated too much now, can you?
excon
More willful blindness. I guess you missed my last post on this (one in a long history of similar posts) where the University of Minnesota's Twin Cities campus is gearing up to demand political allegiance to earn a license to teach in public schools.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Before, this bias was at least cloaked to some degree, now they're coming right out and demanding conformity to their ideology or face reeducation under the ruse of an appreciation banquet.Quote:
The report advocates making race, class and gender politics the "overarching framework" for all teaching courses at the U. It calls for evaluating future teachers in both coursework and practice teaching based on their willingness to fall into ideological lockstep.
The first step toward "cultural competence," says the task group, is for future teachers to recognize -- and confess -- their own bigotry...
What if some aspiring teachers resist this effort at thought control and object to parroting back an ideological line as a condition of future employment? The task group has Orwellian plans for such rebels: The U, it says, must "develop clear steps and procedures for working with non-performing students, including a remediation plan."
And what if students' ideological purity is tainted once they begin to do practice teaching in the public schools? The task group frames the danger this way: "How can we be sure that teaching supervisors are themselves developed and equipped in cultural competence outcomes in order to supervise beginning teachers around issues of race, class, culture, and gender?"
Its answer? "Requir[e] training/workshop for all supervisors. Perhaps a training session disguised as a thank you/recognition ceremony/reception at the beginning of the year?"
When teacher training requires a "disguise," you know something sinister is going on.
The climate religionists are responding to this the same way, the science doesn't matter, we're pushing forward.
Hello again,
Since this is such a scandal, I wondered why I didn't see more of it in the media. Of course, you'd say that the leftist MSM wouldn't report stuff like this..
But, I found an article at Wired blog Threat Level that says "Global warming skeptics are seizing on portions of the messages as evidence that scientists are colluding and warping data to fit the theory of global warming, but researchers say the e-mails are being taken out of context and just show scientists engaged in frank discussion."
Given your predisposition to distrust ANYTHING science does, you'll forgive me if I look askance upon your "scandal".
excon
You're either way behind, haven't kept up with our posts or again being willfully ignorant. We've been asking the same question.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
This meme has already been covered as well.Quote:
But, I found an article at Wired blog Threat Level that says "Global warming skeptics are seizing on portions of the messages as evidence that scientists are colluding and warping data to fit the theory of global warming, but researchers say the e-mails are being taken out of context and just show scientists engaged in frank discussion."
Back to just plain misrepresenting us and willfully ignoring the evidence. Again, I've always asked for an honest debate, and in the face of clear evidence of fraudulent "science" you're the one refusing the honest debate. That's OK, it's not going to go away that easy.Quote:
Given your predisposition to distrust ANYTHING science does, you'll forgive me if I look askance upon your "scandal".
We are challenging the orthodoxy and now we find that the scientists who created the orthodoxy rigged the data in a very unscientifc method .Yet we are the ones who are accused of being anti-science.
It's hard to debate when I have to spend so much time defending against positions I don't support. There has been no greater defender of legitimate science on these boards than I.
The broad brush of equating AGW skepicism with anti-science and off topic issues like Intelligence design may be a clever diversion ;but it does nothing to further this discussion.
Therefore I will no longer respond to ad hominum's along that line .
Media want news, ex, global warming, impending catastrophy that is news, scientist lying, that's not news. We are not provided with truth, we are provided with sensation. I am a skeptic about many things but that's not news. Most of all I am skeptic about what our leaders tell usQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
60 megabytes worth of incriminating emails being taken out of context ?
Yeah that's the ticket !
Trillions of dollars of policy decisions are being based on what these guys are telling us ;and it's all a lie.
The truth cannot be silenced by a thousand lies.I predict that there are many scientists who knew the science behind AGW was a hoak . Now that there is proof of it more of them will come out and challenge the theory .There will be an accounting for this fraud.
One can only hope.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The scientific method I use can predict events correctly. Has AGW theory?
Using the theory of diversion I can safely predict excon will change the subject when the facts don't support his conclusions.
Hello again, Righty's:
You got YOUR facts, and I got MINE. They aren't the same. They never were the same. They never will be the same.
excon
Quote of the day on Climategate by Melanie Phillips:
The White House climate czar's reaction was a shrug. So much for science and transparency in the age of hopenchange. But you stick to your facts, ex.Quote:
All the manipulation, distortion and suppression revealed by these emails took place because it would seem these scientists knew their belief was not only correct but unchallengeable; and so when faced with evidence that showed it was false, they tried every which way to make the data fit the prior agenda. And those who questioned that agenda themselves had to be airbrushed out of the record, because to question it was simply impossible. Only AGW zealots get to decide, apparently, what science is. Truth is what fits their ideological agenda. Anything else is to be expunged.
Which is the more terrifying and devastating: if people are bent and deliberately try to deceive others, or if they are so much in thrall to an ideology that they genuinely have lost the power to think objectively and rationally?
I think that the terrible history of mankind provides the answer to that question. Nixon was a crook. But what we are dealing with here is the totalitarian personality. One thing is now absolutely clear for all to see about the anthropogenic global warming scam: science this is not.
Scientists once concocted the theory of eugenics . There was once a theory based on sound scientific theory that proved blacks inferior to the white race.
Nope and it will not because sound scientific method allows for replication and reproducability of results by someone else working independently.Quote:
The scientific method I use can predict events correctly. Has AGW theory?
Since these scientists fudged data and suppress the release of the raw data their results cannot be reproduced in a laboratory environment . When such attempts have been made ;like the New Zealand attempt... different results happened.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:27 AM. |