Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 11:18 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws
#21
RE: Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws
(January 17, 2013 at 3:44 am)Aractus Wrote: Oh right and you did?

Now now.. Consoling don't get all butt-hurt about it
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
Reply
#22
RE: Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws
You really are a cranky old shrew aren't you? I don't think I said anything remotely out of the standard/ordinary as far as global climate science is concerned, and yet you react with such hostility!

Big Grin A Mann's got to know his limitations. hahahhaha, it's still funny! ROFLOL
Reply
#23
RE: Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws
You know when someone jumps from ranting and raving and insulting to posting something involving lots of smiley icons and lmao icons, I don't see "calm and even," I see "butthurt and trying his damned hardest to not let it be shown that someone just got under his skin." http://www.iamnotfooledbyyouraloofattemptsatbrevity.com

Me, I didn't post anything about the OP topic mostly because I don't really have an opinion about that. Global warming stuff, yeah. Global warming deniers who are examples of said bad science, yeah, but the overall topic of bad science is something I'm kind of careless towards. I see bad science every time I read something by the "Discovery" Institution. I guess once you see fake-science like that and homeopathy and alternative medicines delivered to you so blunt-force trauma, you kind of lose out on the subtle nuances of bad science.

At least that's how it is for me, at any rate...
Reply
#24
RE: Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws
Creed I call it how I see it. Do you see me ranting and raving on and on about the "bad science" of AGW? Nope. I may attack the politics of it, I may point out my opinion on the science, but I don't come on here and pretend that climate scientists are all bad scientists who are practising their profession poorly.
Reply
#25
RE: Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws
Ya know CoH... I think you just nailed Daniel. Perhaps his religion doesn't like a female showing him up?

Angel Cloud
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
Reply
#26
RE: Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws
Anytime that something scientific, say global warming is brought into the public eye then the majority of people won't understand the nuances of it. There is lots of ignorance surrounding global warming. (Or in this case sea level rise as the result of global warming.) Many of the people who believe in Man Made Global Warming don't understand it very well, but none of the so called global warming skeptics understand it very well. Like someone said before, skepticism isn't the same as not automatically believing something.

(January 16, 2013 at 5:11 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: How does that old saying go? Oh, right! "The burden of proof is upon the person making the claim." God is claimed. There is no evidence for god. Evolution is claimed. There's fucktons of evidence for evolution. Global Warming is a myth, it is claimed.

The burden of proof is definitely on people claiming global warming still, but like evolution that burden has been passed over many times. We have data that clearly shows the world is warmer post industrialization. How can we spew all this shit into the environment and not think it's going to affect things? Oh no, it's not doing anything, it's all nature! Give me a break. That's the equivalent of us claiming that the rain forest is cutting itself down.
[Image: dcep7c.jpg]
Reply
#27
RE: Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws
(January 18, 2013 at 12:53 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: Anytime that something scientific, say global warming is brought into the public eye then the majority of people won't understand the nuances of it. There is lots of ignorance surrounding global warming. (Or in this case sea level rise as the result of global warming.) Many of the people who believe in Man Made Global Warming don't understand it very well, but none of the so called global warming skeptics understand it very well. Like someone said before, skepticism isn't the same as not automatically believing something.
None of the sceptics understand it very well? Would you say that of Richard Lindzen? He's a sceptic out of "ignorance"?

Is there a fundamentally different understanding that he has of climate change as opposed to say Michael Mann? Or is it simply that one looks at the science and concludes "EGHG's are not the cause of the climate trend" and the other claims it is? Do you know that, in the absence of any atmospheric change in EGHG levels, that the global climate will still be under continual change?

When Michael Mann is asked about the MWP his answer is that the MWP was localized and that the present trend eclipses it by far. That is a huge stretch of the truth since the science cannot allow you to reach those conclusions. The default scientific position is "don't know". Thus his position could be "don't know" that the MWP is global; yet that isn't what he claims, he makes the distinct claim that he knows that it's localized. That the science allows him to reach that conclusion. You tell me, do you see enough clear evidence to say that the MWP was definitely localized? Michael Mann does. That's the level of "scientific proof" he requires to reach a firm conclusion! So when he says that he has concluded from the science that AGW is real, then I believe that he has reached that conclusion with the same level of confidence, and the same level of evidence as he reaches the conclusion that the MWP was certainly not global!

Let's all be lemmings and jump off the cliff shall we? AGW is pushed by political forces. I may be a capitalist, but even I can see that capitalism distorts true science. Remember Pons and Fleischmann? They embellished the truth a bit in an appeal for funding, and we're talking I think a mere $160,000 or so they were applying for in funding at the time. But did they release a paper where they conclude that cold fusion takes place? Nope. They lost their jobs and had to go into hiding, and AFAIK no one else would hire them! Bad scientists? Or just a bad reaction?

Think about Lance Armstrong. We all knew that he's a lying scumbag, that he's full of shit, and a good for nothing cheat, he didn't need to admit it "come clean", we knew it already. He sues people that dare publish the truth. His wife gets to have the pleasure of telling their children that daddy is a liar, and a bully, and a cheat, and that he has been very successful in his career of exploitation and treason, being a good for nothing dirty cheat has made him filthy rich - sure he has to give back about half of his money or so, but dearies, dear children, his wife will say, it's made him a multimillionaire anyway, so really lie and cheat, rape and pillage, that's how you get ahead and stay ahead in life.

Modern capitalistic science can be like this too. Scientists who produce more results are more popular, get paid more, etc. Who gives a shit if those results are the work of shitty data and poorly drawn conclusions? There's huge amounts of money to be made in climate science, and if everyone knew that the level of evidence for AGW is low, plenty of climate scientists would have to leave climate science start applying for funding for various other things. And so the cycle goes on.

And with that I think I've earned myself a Bible quote:

1 Timothy 6:10: For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.
Reply
#28
RE: Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws
I still think that while humanity is having a detrimental effect on the environment, the Sun is going to have a much greater effect.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/ne...rming.html

And that we can do nothing about.

Except hunker down and ride out the storm.
[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Reply
#29
RE: Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws
^2007? :o

Michael Crichton was still alive back then!
Reply
#30
RE: Bad Science Almost Imposing Restrictive Laws
(January 18, 2013 at 8:31 am)Aractus Wrote: ^2007? :o

Michael Crichton was still alive back then!

And I'm sure he was happy about it too.
[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  truth about game theory, bad or good for the world? Quill01 13 2142 August 21, 2021 at 7:25 pm
Last Post: vulcanlogician
  Damn! How bad did they want to burn up Ted Bundy ? vorlon13 2 1007 December 12, 2016 at 1:48 am
Last Post: vorlon13
  Why combating bad claims is important. Brian37 9 2236 November 24, 2015 at 11:33 am
Last Post: Brian37



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)