kallend 1,623 #201 December 2, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote And then, after all of this YOU really want to bring up biases????? I doubt it People in glass houses... Your paycheck comes from one of the big CO2 polluters, doesn't it? “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.” MY job does not depend you what you say. But, you already know that So, I ask again, YOU really want to go there? but I guess those being investigated for lying (something you post of often) manipulation of data (which YOU must now think is OK) withholding of requested info (you like that too) manipulation of the great peer review system you mention so oft and dumping of the data from which a peer review would be conducted are all acceptable practices for someone with no biases OoooooooooK Do you know the difference between a politically motivated "investigation" and a legitimate conclusion based on real evidence? Are you related to Senator Joe McCarthy by any chance?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #202 December 2, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote And then, after all of this YOU really want to bring up biases????? I doubt it People in glass houses... Your paycheck comes from one of the big CO2 polluters, doesn't it? “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.” MY job does not depend you what you say. But, you already know that So, I ask again, YOU really want to go there? but I guess those being investigated for lying (something you post of often) manipulation of data (which YOU must now think is OK) withholding of requested info (you like that too) manipulation of the great peer review system you mention so oft and dumping of the data from which a peer review would be conducted are all acceptable practices for someone with no biases OoooooooooK Do you know the difference between a politically motivated "investigation" and a legitimate conclusion based on real evidence? Are you related to Senator Joe McCarthy by any chance? Yes, I do, but your hypocritical stance on supporting the ones you agree with vs. the other is blindingly obvious at this time. But then you pick just one of the three links to comment on, the one with the Senator. Then you conveniently ignore the two others where the schools or research centers are investigating the liars. Still genuflecting with folded hands…... All you got is faith now you see. Cause any data and peer reviews you thought you had supporting you just took a swirly down the crapper until it is all looked at again. You know, but some real scientist who is truly searching for truth. And you still have not answered the question as to how you give any credibility to the spokesman I asked you about. You like to bring up credentials often. What about that guy?? Faith again my friend? Ya, faith again"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #203 December 2, 2009 Quote .... “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.” Ha, even that sometimes needs some qualification.And when both are missing....... dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #204 December 2, 2009 QuoteDo you know the difference between a politically motivated "investigation" and a legitimate conclusion based on real evidence? Are you related to Senator Joe McCarthy by any chance? What 'real evidence' would that be, professor? The stuff that CRU threw away 20-some years ago? Primary components that require the MAJOR 'massaging' of data, or the inclusion of specific trees to make the preferred outcome?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #205 December 2, 2009 QuoteQuoteDo you know the difference between a politically motivated "investigation" and a legitimate conclusion based on real evidence? Are you related to Senator Joe McCarthy by any chance? What 'real evidence' would that be, professor? The stuff that CRU threw away 20-some years ago? Primary components that require the MAJOR 'massaging' of data, or the inclusion of specific trees to make the preferred outcome? RTFT... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #206 December 2, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteDo you know the difference between a politically motivated "investigation" and a legitimate conclusion based on real evidence? Are you related to Senator Joe McCarthy by any chance? What 'real evidence' would that be, professor? The stuff that CRU threw away 20-some years ago? Primary components that require the MAJOR 'massaging' of data, or the inclusion of specific trees to make the preferred outcome? RTFT Oh, I'm sorry - I thought you were talking about cliimate 'science', not some imagined persecution by rushmc. My abject apologies - please go back to your whining. I'll keep reading the 'harry read me' file to see some more of the problems CRU had making the data fit the hypothesis.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #207 December 2, 2009 Quote Quote .... “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.” Ha, even that sometimes needs some qualification.And when both are missing....... nice........"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #208 December 2, 2009 Heh.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #209 December 2, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteDo you know the difference between a politically motivated "investigation" and a legitimate conclusion based on real evidence? Are you related to Senator Joe McCarthy by any chance? What 'real evidence' would that be, professor? The stuff that CRU threw away 20-some years ago? Primary components that require the MAJOR 'massaging' of data, or the inclusion of specific trees to make the preferred outcome? RTFT Oh, I'm sorry - I thought you were talking about cliimate 'science', not some imagined persecution by rushmc. My abject apologies - please go back to your whining. I'll keep reading the 'harry read me' file to see some more of the problems CRU had making the data fit the hypothesis. If you see this as "evidence" of some global conspiracy, you're seriously deluded. It IS evidence of boorishness on the part of some scientists, but boorishness is found in all walks of life. Science, unlike most occupations, IS self correcting.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #210 December 2, 2009 QuoteScience, unlike most occupations, IS self correcting. It certainly looks like it's starting to be corrected now, yes. I'm glad you agree.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #211 December 2, 2009 QuoteQuoteScience, unlike most occupations, IS self correcting. It certainly looks like it's starting to be corrected now, yes. I'm glad you agree. Only the speed of the correction is affected by the politics. That is the sad part"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #212 December 3, 2009 John Stewart joking around about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Wt0ZaXu_CA "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #213 December 3, 2009 QuoteJohn Stewart joking around about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Wt0ZaXu_CA And the story about John Stewart being more of a jounalist than ABC, NBC, or CBS. Surprise, surprise... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578990,00.html -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #214 December 3, 2009 >It certainly looks like it's starting to be corrected now, yes. I'm glad you agree. Agreed! ============= Only 0.45% of Physicists sign Denier Petition November 14, 2009 Despite seven months of intense effort to recruit physicists to sign a politically motivated petition disputing anthropogenic climate change, a mere, 0.45% of the American Physical Society’s 47,000 members signed on. It’s a humiliating defeat for the climate change deniers who make such false claims as ”many scientists dispute’ and ‘there is no consensus. The petition drive was announced in the prestigous journal Nature, APS publications, numerous popular and electronic media, as well as heavily promoted by the petition organizers. Despite all of that effort and publicity, a mere 0.45% was all that they could manage. Consider that the success rate for Nigerian email scams is estimated to be 0.1% to 0.2%, ie roughly speaking about the same. ==================== At UN, China's Hu Jintao commits to measurable limits on carbon emissions for the first time Chinese environmental activists hail the shift toward low-carbon technology By Peter Ford Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor from the September 23, 2009 edition Beijing - The pledge that Chinese President Hu Jintao made at Tuesday's United Nations climate change summit in New York – to put the brakes on China's carbon dioxide emissions – may have been short on specifics. Chinese environmentalists, though, are hailing it as an important sign that Beijing is now fully committed to the global crusade against greenhouse gases. The Chinese leader "signaled a willingness to move forward the negotiations" on CO2 curbs that are due to culminate in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December, Greenpeace China's climate expert Yang Ailun said here Wednesday. "This is a step in the right direction." Mr. Hu promised that China would reduce its carbon intensity "by a notable margin by 2020 from 2005 levels." Carbon intensity is the amount of CO2 produced for each unit of economic output. Though Hu put no figure on the goal, this marked the first time that Beijing has committed to measurable limits on its greenhouse-gas emissions. ============================ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #215 December 3, 2009 A question for Billvon...... What is your opinion and perception of Phil Jones stepping down from the directors position of the climate research unit from the University of East Anglia in the UK??? Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #216 December 3, 2009 QuoteAgreed! ============= Only 0.45% of Physicists sign Denier Petition November 14, 2009 Despite seven months of intense effort to recruit physicists to sign a politically motivated petition disputing anthropogenic climate change, a mere, 0.45% of the American Physical Society’s 47,000 members signed on. What was every person's motive not to sign? Truth or Career? Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #217 December 3, 2009 QuoteQuoteDespite seven months of intense effort to recruit physicists to sign a politically motivated petition disputing anthropogenic climate change, a mere, 0.45% of the American Physical Society’s 47,000 members signed on. What was every person's motive not to sign? Truth or Career? A physicist's career depends on truth. "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." ~ Richard Feynman Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #218 December 3, 2009 Maybe about to start again over here http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #219 December 3, 2009 Okay. I believe geologically that the earth is the most changing planet that we know of. However I also believe that Humans weren't the cause for the dinosaurs getting wiped clean and when people push the ideology on me that if I don't buy a Toyota Prius, then we all die and it's my fault is pure bull sh*t. Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #220 December 3, 2009 QuoteOkay. I believe geologically that the earth is the most changing planet that we know of. However I also believe that Humans weren't the cause for the dinosaurs getting wiped clean and when people push the ideology on me that if I don't buy a Toyota Prius, then we all die and it's my fault is pure bull sh*t. You can believe in pink unicorns if you wish. I'll go with the conclusions of the National Academy of Science.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #221 December 3, 2009 QuoteA physicist's career depends on truth. actually, they depend on grants (academia) or results that lead to profit (real world) for short term thinking, neither of those need truth to work long term? truth plays a stronger factor (science is self correcting) unfortunately, AGW has a longer proof cycle than the careers of anyone that cares strongly about either position ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #222 December 3, 2009 >What was every person's motive not to sign? Truth or Career? Probably the same reason most people don't sign 9/11 truther petitions - because they just don't want to get involved in an anti-science conspiracy theory. >What is your opinion and perception of Phil Jones stepping >down from the directors position of the climate research unit from >the University of East Anglia in the UK? I assume he's stepping down to appease the more vocal members of the poplar press, and so the rest of the unit can continue working. I'd expect him to be reinstated once the popular media selects another target. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #223 December 3, 2009 QuoteQuoteAgreed! ============= Only 0.45% of Physicists sign Denier Petition November 14, 2009 Despite seven months of intense effort to recruit physicists to sign a politically motivated petition disputing anthropogenic climate change, a mere, 0.45% of the American Physical Society’s 47,000 members signed on. What was every person's motive not to sign? Truth or Career? Also for the ones that didn't sign, were they qualified in climate science? Or some other discipline of physics? They may not have been qualified in that area. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #224 December 3, 2009 >Also for the ones that didn't sign, were they qualified in climate >science? Or some other discipline of physics? They may not have >been qualified in that area. Quite true. Of course, exactly the same issue applies for the people who _did_ sign - so the percentages may not change much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #225 December 3, 2009 QuoteQuoteScience, unlike most occupations, IS self correcting. It certainly looks like it's starting to be corrected now, yes. I'm glad you agree. Scientists, not you, not Sen. Inhofe, not Fox News, and definitely not rushmc, will evaluate it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
