3rdnlng Posted September 2, 2010 Author Share Posted September 2, 2010 Doesn't have to be global warming research to know that the scientific process is perverted by the IPCC, as I have been, and the InterAcademy Council is now, saying. You've been perverted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Everybody get's their information from somewhere. I'll assume you went to Greenland and measured ice core temperature and C02 levels yourself. Will you stop being a !@#$ing idiot for just ONE post? The data is available. Anyone can get it, and analyze it. I assume you haven't any more than Bluesky has. So shut the !@#$ up, moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Actually, it means the research is bad. And again, that's been my point...the research has been truncated (for lack of a better word) by this fiction that "consensus" is a valid scientific principle, thereby resulting in incomplete research and bad science. I've never said global warming isn't happening, I've never even said it's not anthropogenic. I've said the science is bad. Children like conner simply don't twig to the distinction. Thankfully the scientific process should eventually weed out the bad research and give us an accurate picture of what's happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Actually, it means the research is bad. And again, that's been my point...the research has been truncated (for lack of a better word) by this fiction that "consensus" is a valid scientific principle, thereby resulting in incomplete research and bad science. I've never said global warming isn't happening, I've never even said it's not anthropogenic. I've said the science is bad. Children like conner simply don't twig to the distinction. I will back Tom up on that. He has been extremely consistent in that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Actually, it means the research is bad. And again, that's been my point...the research has been truncated (for lack of a better word) by this fiction that "consensus" is a valid scientific principle, thereby resulting in incomplete research and bad science. I've never said global warming isn't happening, I've never even said it's not anthropogenic. I've said the science is bad. Children like conner simply don't twig to the distinction. The same thing can be said about the Theory of Gravity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 That is one of the stupider justifications I've ever heard. "Bill Gates believes it, good enough for me." Sort of reminds me of "Apple making record profits so the economy must be doing well". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Thankfully the scientific process should eventually weed out the bad research and give us an accurate picture of what's happening. NOT WHEN IT'S NOT BEING FOLLOWED. Which - again - is my point. When you're suppressing contrary research with the excuse "But we have a consensus", the research isn't honest. And that is being done - I've mentioned examples of it before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Everybody get's their information from somewhere. I'll assume you went to Greenland and measured ice core temperature and C02 levels yourself. I agree with Tom, the science is bad, and incomplete for that matter. Should we take better care of mother earth, damn right we should. As far as measuring temperatures goes, some of those locations for that are freaking hillarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 2, 2010 Author Share Posted September 2, 2010 Thankfully the scientific process should eventually weed out the bad research and give us an accurate picture of what's happening. So, in the meantime we must do cap and trade and use lightbulbs that will need a hazmat team to dispose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 The same thing can be said about the Theory of Gravity. Actually, no it can't. I'd explain why to you...but as I said, the distinction's completely lost on you. Now run along and eat some paste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Will you stop being a !@#$ing idiot for just ONE post? The data is available. Anyone can get it, and analyze it. I assume you haven't any more than Bluesky has. So shut the !@#$ up, moron. I think that is my point. We all get our information from 2nd degree sources. I for one place a good degree of trust in the scientific consensus. Since we all have to rely on someone, why not rely on the guys who have to defend their position with the strongest factual data (as opposed to the most money or loudest voice)/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 NOT WHEN IT'S NOT BEING FOLLOWED. Which - again - is my point. When you're suppressing contrary research with the excuse "But we have a consensus", the research isn't honest. And that is being done - I've mentioned examples of it before. It's obviously not going to happen overnight. My belief is that "what is" will eventually win out. I am well aware of your skepticism on that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 2, 2010 Author Share Posted September 2, 2010 Actually, no it can't. I'd explain why to you...but as I said, the distinction's completely lost on you. Now run along and eat some paste. I think that there are several on this board that would be willing to not only explain it to connor but actually demonstrate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 I think that is my point. We all get our information from 2nd degree sources. I for one place a good degree of trust in the scientific consensus. Since we all have to rely on someone, why not rely on the guys who have to defend their position with the strongest factual data (as opposed to the most money or loudest voice)/ "Scientific consensus" is a freakin' contradiction in terms, you insect. Again...you can't even understand the distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 I think that there are several on this board that would be willing to not only explain it to connor but actually demonstrate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 "Scientific consensus" is a freakin' contradiction in terms, you insect. Again...you can't even understand the distinction. Stop it with your false intellectualism Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. In simpleton terms: a majority agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Will you stop being a !@#$ing idiot for just ONE post? The data is available. Anyone can get it, and analyze it. I assume you haven't any more than Bluesky has. So shut the !@#$ up, moron. I've been around long enough to know when I hear, see or read Bullshiit. Some of your past posts are good examples of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Stop it with your false intellectualism In simpleton terms: a majority agree Thank you for proving that the distinction is, in fact, completely lost on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 2, 2010 Author Share Posted September 2, 2010 Stop it with your false intellectualism In simpleton terms: a majority agree Just follow the money to see how a consensus is formed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 You are brainwashed. I love that this is 'tardboy's new favorite line to use on everyone. It's just like a Twilight Zone episode.....conner is the only sane one and everyone else is crazy!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts