2014 Warmest Year on Record? Wwweeeellll...

atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 367
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline

Burnedout
Posts: 540
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Burnedout

Vastet wrote:

Burnedout wrote:

 Since when was peer review perfect?  

 

FYI....You might want to take a look at this recored symposium of 5 editors of 5...YES FIVE scientific journals who are discussing the problem of ...OH YES....'RESEARCHER FRAUD'.  In fact, the whole purpose of the symposium was to discuss RESEARCHER FRAUD.  

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3utUERQx2sc  

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

 

 Oh and while you're at it there Vastet, might want to read this:

 

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37798/title/Fake-Paper-Exposes-Failed-Peer-Review/

I know it is tough to look at your religion from a truly skeptical position.  But until you can come with some REAL evidence, not questionable sources, you've failed to prove shit.  

 

Who said peer review was perfect? There's a lot of issues with peer review right now. But those issues pale in comparison to the issues in news media. Peer review is infinitely more valuable than a news article.

 

So you're willing to excuse the problems of peer review and not the news media?  Kind of hypocritical there?  


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Nope. It's called logic.

Nope. It's called logic. Peer review results in more accurate data than unsolicited opinions. By a factor of billions. As a result, I take peer reviewed science with a grain of salt. And un-peer reviewed science as completely bogus.

Oh btw, just for you. Human made greenhouse gasses have now been directly observed to cause an increase in ambient temperature. So much for all your bullshit. LOL

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm

Journal Reference:
D. R. Feldman, W. D. Collins, P. J. Gero, M. S. Torn, E. J. Mlawer, T. R. Shippert. Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010. Nature, 2015; DOI: 10.1038/nature14240

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Burnedout
Posts: 540
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Nope. It's

Vastet wrote:
Nope. It's called logic. Peer review results in more accurate data than unsolicited opinions. By a factor of billions. As a result, I take peer reviewed science with a grain of salt. And un-peer reviewed science as completely bogus. Oh btw, just for you. Human made greenhouse gasses have now been directly observed to cause an increase in ambient temperature. So much for all your bullshit. LOL http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm Journal Reference: D. R. Feldman, W. D. Collins, P. J. Gero, M. S. Torn, E. J. Mlawer, T. R. Shippert. Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010. Nature, 2015; DOI: 10.1038/nature14240

 

How do you know that the data you have is correct?  How do you know it is not based on faulty data?  I have shown you plenty of cases where the peer review system failed.  You are not based in logic, but emotion.  You also don't apply the same level of scrutiny to peer review as you do the media.  BTW...the media does have a bias, but at least they are more honest about it for the most part than the institutional people in the peer review committees.  Too bad the peer reviewers and their funders are not given the same level of scrutiny by you as the media.  But then I know you are a TRUE believer.    


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout wrote:How do you

Burnedout wrote:
How do you know that the data you have is correct?

I can test it myself.

Burnedout wrote:
How do you know it is not based on faulty data?

I can test it myself.

Burnedout wrote:
I have shown you plenty of cases where the peer review system failed.

No, you've shown only that fraud can creep in to the peer review process. Which is hardly news. It's been happening for centuries. Those of us who have functional brains already knew about your claims.

Burnedout wrote:
You are not based in logic, but emotion.  

Projection.

Burnedout wrote:
You also don't apply the same level of scrutiny to peer review as you do the media.

Because it isn't necessary. Peer review is a far more trustworthy process.

Burnedout wrote:

BTW...the media does have a bias, but at least they are honest about it for the most part.

No they aren't. Faux news doesn't display a message saying "For entertainment purposes only" before every broadcast.

Burnedout wrote:

Too bad the peer reviewers and their funders are not.

You're absolutely wrong on every count. Grats!

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Burnedout
Posts: 540
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:I can test it

 

Quote:
I can test it myself.

HOW?  With computer models?  YOU know as well as I do there are conflicting computer models.  Unless you have 'GAWD LIKE POWERS'.  

 

Quote:
No, you've shown only that fraud can creep in to the peer review process. Which is hardly news. It's been happening for centuries. Those of us who have functional brains already knew about your claims.

 

Yet...you still acknowledge there is a problem and you still trust the source.  That is no different than drinking from contaminated water with some Ecoli.  But then I must correct as you are attacking me personally.  Congrats, in your claim of victory, you lose.  Eye-wink

 

 

Quote:
Because it isn't necessary. Peer review is a far more trustworthy process.

 

OH...PROVE IT!  You made an assertion, you prove it. Again, that is no different than drinking from water that is contaminated with a small amount of Ecoli. The majority of the water may be clear but there is just a SMALL amount of Ecoli.  You are engaging in risky behavior if you do. 

Quote:
No they aren't. Faux news doesn't display a message saying "For entertainment purposes only" before every broadcast.

Bitter because Fox disagrees with your world view still?  Prove they are not telling the truth.  I can show you that virtually ALL so-called news organizations have at least SOME bias.  But then again, you are trying to divert from the fact that Peer Review is not the all knowing all sanctified process it is made out to be.  Especially when you have large sums of grant money with strings attached to the process.  

 

Quote:
You're absolutely wrong on every count. Grats!

Hmm...projecting?  Eye-wink

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout wrote:HOW?  With

Burnedout wrote:
HOW?  With computer models?

LOL you're so clueless. If you can't figure it out in less than a second, it becomes obvious why you depend on news media. You have neither the education nor the intelligence to understand a peer reviewed science journal.

Burnedout wrote:
Yet...you still acknowledge there is a problem and you still trust the source.

Your lies and misrepresentations amuse me.

Burnedout wrote:
That is no different than drinking from contaminated water with some Ecoli.

Only to a moron would that seem true.. Smiling

Burnedout wrote:
Congrats, in your claim of victory, you lose.

Only in your little mind. Smiling

Burnedout wrote:
OH...PROVE IT!

No. You can't understand a simple science experiment. I'm certainly not going to waste my time providing you with a complex one.

Burnedout wrote:
You made an assertion, you prove it.

You're the one asserting that science journals are less trustworthy than news media, you prove it.

Burnedout wrote:
Bitter because Fox disagrees with your world view still?

My world view is not relevant. Facts are relevant. Try again.

Burnedout wrote:
But then again, you are trying to divert from the fact that Peer Review is not the all knowing all sanctified process it is made out to be.

I never made it out to be perfect. I specifically stated the opposite. Your desperation is showing.

Burnedout wrote:
Hmm...projecting?

You certainly are. Smiling

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Burnedout
Posts: 540
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Burnedout

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:
HOW?  With computer models?
LOL you're so clueless. If you can't figure it out in less than a second, it becomes obvious why you depend on news media. You have neither the education nor the intelligence to understand a peer reviewed science journal.
Burnedout wrote:
Yet...you still acknowledge there is a problem and you still trust the source.
Your lies and misrepresentations amuse me.
Burnedout wrote:
That is no different than drinking from contaminated water with some Ecoli.
Only to a moron would that seem true.. Smiling
Burnedout wrote:
Congrats, in your claim of victory, you lose.
Only in your little mind. Smiling
Burnedout wrote:
OH...PROVE IT!
No. You can't understand a simple science experiment. I'm certainly not going to waste my time providing you with a complex one.
Burnedout wrote:
You made an assertion, you prove it.
You're the one asserting that science journals are less trustworthy than news media, you prove it.
Burnedout wrote:
Bitter because Fox disagrees with your world view still?
My world view is not relevant. Facts are relevant. Try again.
Burnedout wrote:
But then again, you are trying to divert from the fact that Peer Review is not the all knowing all sanctified process it is made out to be.
I never made it out to be perfect. I specifically stated the opposite. Your desperation is showing.
Burnedout wrote:
Hmm...projecting?
You certainly are. Smiling

 

My my...the personal attacks of me are quite amusing.  It appears the longer we go, the more personally attacking you become.  Tell you what, because I'm a nice guy, I will let you have the last word.  But you STILL fail to convince me. OH...and you might want to switch to decafinated coffee. It shows.  


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout wrote:Vastet

Burnedout wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:
HOW?  With computer models?
LOL you're so clueless. If you can't figure it out in less than a second, it becomes obvious why you depend on news media. You have neither the education nor the intelligence to understand a peer reviewed science journal.
Burnedout wrote:
Yet...you still acknowledge there is a problem and you still trust the source.
Your lies and misrepresentations amuse me.
Burnedout wrote:
That is no different than drinking from contaminated water with some Ecoli.
Only to a moron would that seem true.. Smiling
Burnedout wrote:
Congrats, in your claim of victory, you lose.
Only in your little mind. Smiling
Burnedout wrote:
OH...PROVE IT!
No. You can't understand a simple science experiment. I'm certainly not going to waste my time providing you with a complex one.
Burnedout wrote:
You made an assertion, you prove it.
You're the one asserting that science journals are less trustworthy than news media, you prove it.
Burnedout wrote:
Bitter because Fox disagrees with your world view still?
My world view is not relevant. Facts are relevant. Try again.
Burnedout wrote:
But then again, you are trying to divert from the fact that Peer Review is not the all knowing all sanctified process it is made out to be.
I never made it out to be perfect. I specifically stated the opposite. Your desperation is showing.
Burnedout wrote:
Hmm...projecting?
You certainly are. Smiling

 

My my...the personal attacks of me are quite amusing.

Your insistence that I'm attacking you personally is quite amusing. I'm simply stating facts. If it bothers you that you're a moron, I have good news! You don't have to be. Just go back to school (a real one this time).

Burnedout wrote:
It appears the longer we go, the more personally attacking you become.

The longer we go, the dumber you prove yourself to be. It's a simple correlation. Much like how you're ignoring facts and have focused on descriptions of your intellect. It's like you think my calling you a moron invalidates the fact that you can test climate change yourself and prove it is real. Quite amusing.

Burnedout wrote:
Tell you what, because I'm a nice guy, I will let you have the last word.

More like even you are smart enough to realise you can't win, so you're backing away hoping to retain some dignity. But it's way too late for that.

Burnedout wrote:
But you STILL fail to convince me.

Convincing you is hardly a goal worth pursuing. The time investment necessary alone would require a return of some kind. Unless you're rich beyond compare and/or have an extensive network of contacts in industry, commerce, and politics; it would be a poor investment.

Burnedout wrote:
OH...and you might want to switch to decafinated coffee. It shows.

Coffee keeps me going. Decaf sucks.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
For posterity...I wrote

For posterity...I wrote stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OLPL5p0fMg

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Burnedout
Posts: 540
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Burnedout

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:
HOW?  With computer models?
LOL you're so clueless. If you can't figure it out in less than a second, it becomes obvious why you depend on news media. You have neither the education nor the intelligence to understand a peer reviewed science journal.
Burnedout wrote:
Yet...you still acknowledge there is a problem and you still trust the source.
Your lies and misrepresentations amuse me.
Burnedout wrote:
That is no different than drinking from contaminated water with some Ecoli.
Only to a moron would that seem true.. Smiling
Burnedout wrote:
Congrats, in your claim of victory, you lose.
Only in your little mind. Smiling
Burnedout wrote:
OH...PROVE IT!
No. You can't understand a simple science experiment. I'm certainly not going to waste my time providing you with a complex one.
Burnedout wrote:
You made an assertion, you prove it.
You're the one asserting that science journals are less trustworthy than news media, you prove it.
Burnedout wrote:
Bitter because Fox disagrees with your world view still?
My world view is not relevant. Facts are relevant. Try again.
Burnedout wrote:
But then again, you are trying to divert from the fact that Peer Review is not the all knowing all sanctified process it is made out to be.
I never made it out to be perfect. I specifically stated the opposite. Your desperation is showing.
Burnedout wrote:
Hmm...projecting?
You certainly are. Smiling

 

My my...the personal attacks of me are quite amusing.

Your insistence that I'm attacking you personally is quite amusing. I'm simply stating facts. If it bothers you that you're a moron, I have good news! You don't have to be. Just go back to school (a real one this time).
Burnedout wrote:
It appears the longer we go, the more personally attacking you become.
The longer we go, the dumber you prove yourself to be. It's a simple correlation. Much like how you're ignoring facts and have focused on descriptions of your intellect. It's like you think my calling you a moron invalidates the fact that you can test climate change yourself and prove it is real. Quite amusing.
Burnedout wrote:
Tell you what, because I'm a nice guy, I will let you have the last word.
More like even you are smart enough to realise you can't win, so you're backing away hoping to retain some dignity. But it's way too late for that.
Burnedout wrote:
But you STILL fail to convince me.
Convincing you is hardly a goal worth pursuing. The time investment necessary alone would require a return of some kind. Unless you're rich beyond compare and/or have an extensive network of contacts in industry, commerce, and politics; it would be a poor investment.
Burnedout wrote:
OH...and you might want to switch to decafinated coffee. It shows.
Coffee keeps me going. Decaf sucks.

 

More personal attacks as usual.  You go on and on about calling me names.  Is that all you have? If convincing me is not a goal worth persuing, why do you keep trying?  You must be concered about what I have posted or you wouldn't be so upset and attacking. The fact is that you are falling for some fallacys; appeal to authority, and appeal to consensus, plus you throw in some "PEER REVIEWED" material that you have not dared to question.  I have shown examples, and can pull WAY more examples of fraud in the research process, including peer review.  It is a fact and you can try to deny it all you want, but those facts will not go away.  


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout wrote:Vastet

Burnedout wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:
HOW?  With computer models?
LOL you're so clueless. If you can't figure it out in less than a second, it becomes obvious why you depend on news media. You have neither the education nor the intelligence to understand a peer reviewed science journal.
Burnedout wrote:
Yet...you still acknowledge there is a problem and you still trust the source.
Your lies and misrepresentations amuse me.
Burnedout wrote:
That is no different than drinking from contaminated water with some Ecoli.
Only to a moron would that seem true.. Smiling
Burnedout wrote:
Congrats, in your claim of victory, you lose.
Only in your little mind. Smiling
Burnedout wrote:
OH...PROVE IT!
No. You can't understand a simple science experiment. I'm certainly not going to waste my time providing you with a complex one.
Burnedout wrote:
You made an assertion, you prove it.
You're the one asserting that science journals are less trustworthy than news media, you prove it.
Burnedout wrote:
Bitter because Fox disagrees with your world view still?
My world view is not relevant. Facts are relevant. Try again.
Burnedout wrote:
But then again, you are trying to divert from the fact that Peer Review is not the all knowing all sanctified process it is made out to be.
I never made it out to be perfect. I specifically stated the opposite. Your desperation is showing.
Burnedout wrote:
Hmm...projecting?
You certainly are. Smiling

 

My my...the personal attacks of me are quite amusing.

Your insistence that I'm attacking you personally is quite amusing. I'm simply stating facts. If it bothers you that you're a moron, I have good news! You don't have to be. Just go back to school (a real one this time).
Burnedout wrote:
It appears the longer we go, the more personally attacking you become.
The longer we go, the dumber you prove yourself to be. It's a simple correlation. Much like how you're ignoring facts and have focused on descriptions of your intellect. It's like you think my calling you a moron invalidates the fact that you can test climate change yourself and prove it is real. Quite amusing.
Burnedout wrote:
Tell you what, because I'm a nice guy, I will let you have the last word.
More like even you are smart enough to realise you can't win, so you're backing away hoping to retain some dignity. But it's way too late for that.
Burnedout wrote:
But you STILL fail to convince me.
Convincing you is hardly a goal worth pursuing. The time investment necessary alone would require a return of some kind. Unless you're rich beyond compare and/or have an extensive network of contacts in industry, commerce, and politics; it would be a poor investment.
Burnedout wrote:
OH...and you might want to switch to decafinated coffee. It shows.
Coffee keeps me going. Decaf sucks.

 

More personal attacks as usual. 

Failure to acknowledge reality, and attempting to change the subject.

By the way, you're the one who started with the personal attacks. So not only are you a clueless idiot, you're also a hypocrite. LOLOL

Burnedout wrote:
You go on and on about calling me names.  Is that all you have?

I could ask that of you. 

Burnedout wrote:
If convincing me is not a goal worth persuing, why do you keep trying?

I'm not trying. I'm simply pointing out how stupid you are to any potential observer so your stupidity doesn't infect them. Believe whatever you like. But don't expect your bullshit to be left alone as if it had any validity to it. It never will be. Not here. Even if I stop destroying your posts, someone else will step in and take over. Your time here will be an endless repitition of your failure. LOLOL

Burnedout wrote:
 You must be concered about what I have posted or you wouldn't be so upset and attacking.

Projection. So the reason you called me a nazi is that you are concerned with what I'm writing. Not a good excuse, but whatever.

Burnedout wrote:
The fact is that you are falling for some fallacys

Not a one. You, on the other hand....

Burnedout wrote:
; appeal to authority, and appeal to consensus,

Nope.

 

Burnedout wrote:
plus you throw in some "PEER REVIEWED" material that you have not dared to question.
 

More blatant lies.

Burnedout wrote:
 I have shown examples,

Lol

Burnedout wrote:
and can pull WAY more examples of fraud in the research process, including peer review.
 

It doesn't matter. For every fraud you can find in the peer review process, I can find a billion frauds in the news media. Peer review > news. 

Burnedout wrote:
It is a fact and you can try to deny it all you want, but those facts will not go away.  

You have no facts, only lies and stupidity. You can try and convince yourself otherwise, but you'll never convince anyone here.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Burnedout
Posts: 540
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Burnedout

Vastet wrote:

Burnedout wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:
HOW?  With computer models?
LOL you're so clueless. If you can't figure it out in less than a second, it becomes obvious why you depend on news media. You have neither the education nor the intelligence to understand a peer reviewed science journal.
Burnedout wrote:
Yet...you still acknowledge there is a problem and you still trust the source.
Your lies and misrepresentations amuse me.
Burnedout wrote:
That is no different than drinking from contaminated water with some Ecoli.
Only to a moron would that seem true.. Smiling
Burnedout wrote:
Congrats, in your claim of victory, you lose.
Only in your little mind. Smiling
Burnedout wrote:
OH...PROVE IT!
No. You can't understand a simple science experiment. I'm certainly not going to waste my time providing you with a complex one.
Burnedout wrote:
You made an assertion, you prove it.
You're the one asserting that science journals are less trustworthy than news media, you prove it.
Burnedout wrote:
Bitter because Fox disagrees with your world view still?
My world view is not relevant. Facts are relevant. Try again.
Burnedout wrote:
But then again, you are trying to divert from the fact that Peer Review is not the all knowing all sanctified process it is made out to be.
I never made it out to be perfect. I specifically stated the opposite. Your desperation is showing.
Burnedout wrote:
Hmm...projecting?
You certainly are. Smiling

 

My my...the personal attacks of me are quite amusing.

Your insistence that I'm attacking you personally is quite amusing. I'm simply stating facts. If it bothers you that you're a moron, I have good news! You don't have to be. Just go back to school (a real one this time).
Burnedout wrote:
It appears the longer we go, the more personally attacking you become.
The longer we go, the dumber you prove yourself to be. It's a simple correlation. Much like how you're ignoring facts and have focused on descriptions of your intellect. It's like you think my calling you a moron invalidates the fact that you can test climate change yourself and prove it is real. Quite amusing.
Burnedout wrote:
Tell you what, because I'm a nice guy, I will let you have the last word.
More like even you are smart enough to realise you can't win, so you're backing away hoping to retain some dignity. But it's way too late for that.
Burnedout wrote:
But you STILL fail to convince me.
Convincing you is hardly a goal worth pursuing. The time investment necessary alone would require a return of some kind. Unless you're rich beyond compare and/or have an extensive network of contacts in industry, commerce, and politics; it would be a poor investment.
Burnedout wrote:
OH...and you might want to switch to decafinated coffee. It shows.
Coffee keeps me going. Decaf sucks.

 

More personal attacks as usual. 

Failure to acknowledge reality, and attempting to change the subject.

By the way, you're the one who started with the personal attacks. So not only are you a clueless idiot, you're also a hypocrite. LOLOL

Burnedout wrote:
You go on and on about calling me names.  Is that all you have?

I could ask that of you. 

Burnedout wrote:
If convincing me is not a goal worth persuing, why do you keep trying?

I'm not trying. I'm simply pointing out how stupid you are to any potential observer so your stupidity doesn't infect them. Believe whatever you like. But don't expect your bullshit to be left alone as if it had any validity to it. It never will be. Not here. Even if I stop destroying your posts, someone else will step in and take over. Your time here will be an endless repitition of your failure. LOLOL

Burnedout wrote:
 You must be concered about what I have posted or you wouldn't be so upset and attacking.

Projection. So the reason you called me a nazi is that you are concerned with what I'm writing. Not a good excuse, but whatever.

Burnedout wrote:
The fact is that you are falling for some fallacys

Not a one. You, on the other hand....

Burnedout wrote:
; appeal to authority, and appeal to consensus,

Nope.

 

Burnedout wrote:
plus you throw in some "PEER REVIEWED" material that you have not dared to question.
 

More blatant lies.

Burnedout wrote:
 I have shown examples,

Lol

Burnedout wrote:
and can pull WAY more examples of fraud in the research process, including peer review.
 

It doesn't matter. For every fraud you can find in the peer review process, I can find a billion frauds in the news media. Peer review > news. 

Burnedout wrote:
It is a fact and you can try to deny it all you want, but those facts will not go away.  

You have no facts, only lies and stupidity. You can try and convince yourself otherwise, but you'll never convince anyone here.

 

Are you calling this a lie?  

http://www.naturalnews.com/045808_global_warming_fraud_data_manipulation_NOAA.html#%23ixzz36EOG14pU   NOAA caught in a lie about warmest year.  They were forced to change their website.   

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/on-the-hijacking-of-the-american-meteorological-society-ams/ Member of the American Meteorological Society calls BS on global warming.  

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mIVZnnqm7o#t=149 Lead advocate for Global Warming/Climate Change was debunked on Australian TV by other scientists no less.

 

http://www.sott.net/article/276813-Peer-reviewed-paper-says-its-OK-to-manipulate-data-exaggerate-climate-claims Paper telling Global warming scientists to manipulate data.

 

 

Please cite SPECIFICALLY in ANY of these links that are NOT factual or you are just looking for a pissing contest merely using this issue as  camouflage for your own personal grudge. 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout wrote:Are you

Burnedout wrote:

Are you calling this a lie?

A lie is generally defined as intentionally claiming something that one knows to be false, so no, most of those are not lies. Only some of them are. Some of them are misinformed. Some of them are genuinely informative sources which you've misinterpreted to match your views.

Burnedout wrote:
Please cite SPECIFICALLY in ANY of these links that are NOT factual

It's not necessarily that simple. You could cite a real scientific scam. In that case, there is nothing wrong with the source, just with your logic. 

See post #4, #14, #20, #87, #94. 

And this is not including other threads. I'm still waiting.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Also, since you don't read

Also, since you don't read anything I write, but appear to place substantial weight on how many websites you can paste off google to support your position, I do have a good site in mind.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

Of course, it's only one link, so you're still winning, lol. 

There is an enormous amount of information here and much of it is rather dry reading. Of course, real scientific discussions on anthropogenic climate change, in contrast to blogs and the media, is generally very dry. Nobody is going to read about subtle fluctuations in the hadley circulation or mathematical calculations concerning the atmosphere radiation budget. Oh no, it's much easier for everyone to pick out sound bites and '#lines' to make a strong assertion and feel like they're saying something relevant. But, to an extent, that very fact indicates that it's legitimate science; it doesn't care how catchy it is. Just like how not catchy, apparently, my posts are, since you possess no patience and/or desire to read it. Obviously, I haven't read all of it either or even most of it. But, unlike you, I am still willing to discuss whatever questions might come up when you read it (not holding my breath). So, whenever you want to stop waving around your ironically erroneous perception of skepticism and discuss the actual science, I've made it slightly easier for you.  

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout wrote:Are you

Burnedout wrote:
Are you calling this a lie?  

http://www.naturalnews.com/045808_global_warming_fraud_data_manipulation_NOAA.html#%23ixzz36EOG14pU   NOAA caught in a lie about warmest year.  They were forced to change their website.   

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/on-the-hijacking-of-the-american-meteorological-society-ams/ Member of the American Meteorological Society calls BS on global warming.  

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mIVZnnqm7o#t=149 Lead advocate for Global Warming/Climate Change was debunked on Australian TV by other scientists no less.

 

http://www.sott.net/article/276813-Peer-reviewed-paper-says-its-OK-to-manipulate-data-exaggerate-climate-claims Paper telling Global warming scientists to manipulate data.

Those sources aren't qualified to assess the various scenarios they attempt to. Try again.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Burnedout
Posts: 540
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Burnedout

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:
Are you calling this a lie?   http://www.naturalnews.com/045808_global_warming_fraud_data_manipulation_NOAA.html#%23ixzz36EOG14pU   NOAA caught in a lie about warmest year.  They were forced to change their website.      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/on-the-hijacking-of-the-american-meteorological-society-ams/ Member of the American Meteorological Society calls BS on global warming.     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mIVZnnqm7o#t=149 Lead advocate for Global Warming/Climate Change was debunked on Australian TV by other scientists no less.   http://www.sott.net/article/276813-Peer-reviewed-paper-says-its-OK-to-manipulate-data-exaggerate-climate-claims Paper telling Global warming scientists to manipulate data.
Those sources aren't qualified to assess the various scenarios they attempt to. Try again.

 

You are dodging.  Please cite which part of what they say is incorrect.  


Burnedout
Posts: 540
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Burnedout

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:
Are you calling this a lie?   http://www.naturalnews.com/045808_global_warming_fraud_data_manipulation_NOAA.html#%23ixzz36EOG14pU   NOAA caught in a lie about warmest year.  They were forced to change their website.      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/on-the-hijacking-of-the-american-meteorological-society-ams/ Member of the American Meteorological Society calls BS on global warming.     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mIVZnnqm7o#t=149 Lead advocate for Global Warming/Climate Change was debunked on Australian TV by other scientists no less.   http://www.sott.net/article/276813-Peer-reviewed-paper-says-its-OK-to-manipulate-data-exaggerate-climate-claims Paper telling Global warming scientists to manipulate data.
Those sources aren't qualified to assess the various scenarios they attempt to. Try again.

 

You are dodging.  Please cite a SPECIFIC section, or item of what is said that is incorrect.  


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout wrote:Vastet

Burnedout wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:
Are you calling this a lie?   http://www.naturalnews.com/045808_global_warming_fraud_data_manipulation_NOAA.html#%23ixzz36EOG14pU   NOAA caught in a lie about warmest year.  They were forced to change their website.      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/on-the-hijacking-of-the-american-meteorological-society-ams/ Member of the American Meteorological Society calls BS on global warming.     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mIVZnnqm7o#t=149 Lead advocate for Global Warming/Climate Change was debunked on Australian TV by other scientists no less.   http://www.sott.net/article/276813-Peer-reviewed-paper-says-its-OK-to-manipulate-data-exaggerate-climate-claims Paper telling Global warming scientists to manipulate data.
Those sources aren't qualified to assess the various scenarios they attempt to. Try again.

 

You are dodging.  Please cite which part of what they say is incorrect.  

No you are dodging. Giving sources that are equivalent to an English teacher grading a math test is a demonstration of how much effort you are putting into denying reality. You have yet to provide a single credible source to overturn the science of climate change. You're just making a fool of yourself.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Vastet wrote:[

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
[
EXC wrote:
The fact remains to agree with you, one most hold contadictory views.
No, actually, that applies to your views. Not mine.

So set the record strait.

Is human caused global warming a potenial disaster for the earth and humankind?

Is the earth large or small?

is the earth's climate  fragile or stable?

Is the earth overpopulated or underpopulated?

Is the number of potential workers and donors for projects like a lunar space elevator and solar sunshield large or small?

Is there any hope humanity could build something in a couple decades to reduce  global warming?

 

We had the technology to keep CO2 under damaging levels almost 100 years ago. Solar technology was arround back then. Human greed of established oil, even today prevents a quicker change. It isn't a matter of can we do something, we have no choice but to try. The GOP and big oil certainly aren't going to help.

The problem with why humans don't accept climate change is because they stupidly look out the window one day when it is cold and go "its cold" therefore climate change is bullshit. 

I heard one scientist use a different term "Climate volitility" and I like that better. It describes the exteme weather much better. Like the abnormal 7 feet of snow the North east had. 

I don't see all life going extinct because of it, but the longer we wait and do nothing the worse it is going to get and will lead to more conflict wordwide. It certainly has the potential to knock out a lot of the world's population. But it also wouldnt surprise me if we go extinct because of our lack of action.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
CO2 is not the demon that

CO2 is not the demon that the media portrays it to be. There is a limit to the effect carbon can have on temperatures, and that limit is not beyond human habitability.
And the solar technology of a hundred years ago was roughly equivalent to boiling an egg on a rock in a desert. It certainly could not have replaced fossil fuels in any meaningful way.

Fucking idiots on all sides in this shit.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Burnedout
Posts: 540
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Burnedout

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:
Are you calling this a lie?   http://www.naturalnews.com/045808_global_warming_fraud_data_manipulation_NOAA.html#%23ixzz36EOG14pU   NOAA caught in a lie about warmest year.  They were forced to change their website.      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/on-the-hijacking-of-the-american-meteorological-society-ams/ Member of the American Meteorological Society calls BS on global warming.     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mIVZnnqm7o#t=149 Lead advocate for Global Warming/Climate Change was debunked on Australian TV by other scientists no less.   http://www.sott.net/article/276813-Peer-reviewed-paper-says-its-OK-to-manipulate-data-exaggerate-climate-claims Paper telling Global warming scientists to manipulate data.
Those sources aren't qualified to assess the various scenarios they attempt to. Try again.

 

You are dodging.  Please cite which part of what they say is incorrect.  

No you are dodging. Giving sources that are equivalent to an English teacher grading a math test is a demonstration of how much effort you are putting into denying reality. You have yet to provide a single credible source to overturn the science of climate change. You're just making a fool of yourself.

 

I simply have poked holes in the sources you run to.  You cannot deny the facts of those articles I have posted.  At least you don't even try.  All you do is try to reflect back with accuasations and diversion with no sources.  It is a game with you.  


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout wrote:Vastet

Burnedout wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:
Are you calling this a lie?   http://www.naturalnews.com/045808_global_warming_fraud_data_manipulation_NOAA.html#%23ixzz36EOG14pU   NOAA caught in a lie about warmest year.  They were forced to change their website.      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/on-the-hijacking-of-the-american-meteorological-society-ams/ Member of the American Meteorological Society calls BS on global warming.     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mIVZnnqm7o#t=149 Lead advocate for Global Warming/Climate Change was debunked on Australian TV by other scientists no less.   http://www.sott.net/article/276813-Peer-reviewed-paper-says-its-OK-to-manipulate-data-exaggerate-climate-claims Paper telling Global warming scientists to manipulate data.
Those sources aren't qualified to assess the various scenarios they attempt to. Try again.

 

You are dodging.  Please cite which part of what they say is incorrect.  

No you are dodging. Giving sources that are equivalent to an English teacher grading a math test is a demonstration of how much effort you are putting into denying reality. You have yet to provide a single credible source to overturn the science of climate change. You're just making a fool of yourself.

 

I simply have poked holes in the sources you run to.  You cannot deny the facts of those articles I have posted.  At least you don't even try.  All you do is try to reflect back with accuasations and diversion with no sources.  It is a game with you.  

A blatant lie, since none of your sources is qualified to discuss the subject or interpret the data. You are dodging. You have no evidence, just propaganda.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Burnedout
Posts: 540
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Burnedout

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:
Are you calling this a lie?   http://www.naturalnews.com/045808_global_warming_fraud_data_manipulation_NOAA.html#%23ixzz36EOG14pU   NOAA caught in a lie about warmest year.  They were forced to change their website.      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/on-the-hijacking-of-the-american-meteorological-society-ams/ Member of the American Meteorological Society calls BS on global warming.     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mIVZnnqm7o#t=149 Lead advocate for Global Warming/Climate Change was debunked on Australian TV by other scientists no less.   http://www.sott.net/article/276813-Peer-reviewed-paper-says-its-OK-to-manipulate-data-exaggerate-climate-claims Paper telling Global warming scientists to manipulate data.
Those sources aren't qualified to assess the various scenarios they attempt to. Try again.

 

You are dodging.  Please cite which part of what they say is incorrect.  

No you are dodging. Giving sources that are equivalent to an English teacher grading a math test is a demonstration of how much effort you are putting into denying reality. You have yet to provide a single credible source to overturn the science of climate change. You're just making a fool of yourself.

 

I simply have poked holes in the sources you run to.  You cannot deny the facts of those articles I have posted.  At least you don't even try.  All you do is try to reflect back with accuasations and diversion with no sources.  It is a game with you.  

A blatant lie, since none of your sources is qualified to discuss the subject or interpret the data. You are dodging. You have no evidence, just propaganda.

Well...if they are not qualified to discuss the subject, then you should be able to FACTUALLY discredit them.  Just because you point a finger and accuse them is no fact.  YOU are DODGING and YOU KNOW IT.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout wrote:Vastet

Burnedout wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:
Are you calling this a lie?   http://www.naturalnews.com/045808_global_warming_fraud_data_manipulation_NOAA.html#%23ixzz36EOG14pU   NOAA caught in a lie about warmest year.  They were forced to change their website.      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/on-the-hijacking-of-the-american-meteorological-society-ams/ Member of the American Meteorological Society calls BS on global warming.     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mIVZnnqm7o#t=149 Lead advocate for Global Warming/Climate Change was debunked on Australian TV by other scientists no less.   http://www.sott.net/article/276813-Peer-reviewed-paper-says-its-OK-to-manipulate-data-exaggerate-climate-claims Paper telling Global warming scientists to manipulate data.
Those sources aren't qualified to assess the various scenarios they attempt to. Try again.

 

You are dodging.  Please cite which part of what they say is incorrect.  

No you are dodging. Giving sources that are equivalent to an English teacher grading a math test is a demonstration of how much effort you are putting into denying reality. You have yet to provide a single credible source to overturn the science of climate change. You're just making a fool of yourself.

 

I simply have poked holes in the sources you run to.  You cannot deny the facts of those articles I have posted.  At least you don't even try.  All you do is try to reflect back with accuasations and diversion with no sources.  It is a game with you.  

A blatant lie, since none of your sources is qualified to discuss the subject or interpret the data. You are dodging. You have no evidence, just propaganda.

Well...if they are not qualified to discuss the subject, then you should be able to FACTUALLY discredit them.  Just because you point a finger and accuse them is no fact.  YOU are DODGING and YOU KNOW IT.

 

I don't have to factually discredit them, scientists already did. YOU have to factually discredit the scientists, and using discredited media articles will never accomplish that.

YOU ARE DODGING AND YOU KNOW IT! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Burnedout
Posts: 540
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Burnedout

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:
Are you calling this a lie?   http://www.naturalnews.com/045808_global_warming_fraud_data_manipulation_NOAA.html#%23ixzz36EOG14pU   NOAA caught in a lie about warmest year.  They were forced to change their website.      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/on-the-hijacking-of-the-american-meteorological-society-ams/ Member of the American Meteorological Society calls BS on global warming.     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mIVZnnqm7o#t=149 Lead advocate for Global Warming/Climate Change was debunked on Australian TV by other scientists no less.   http://www.sott.net/article/276813-Peer-reviewed-paper-says-its-OK-to-manipulate-data-exaggerate-climate-claims Paper telling Global warming scientists to manipulate data.
Those sources aren't qualified to assess the various scenarios they attempt to. Try again.

 

You are dodging.  Please cite which part of what they say is incorrect.  

No you are dodging. Giving sources that are equivalent to an English teacher grading a math test is a demonstration of how much effort you are putting into denying reality. You have yet to provide a single credible source to overturn the science of climate change. You're just making a fool of yourself.

 

I simply have poked holes in the sources you run to.  You cannot deny the facts of those articles I have posted.  At least you don't even try.  All you do is try to reflect back with accuasations and diversion with no sources.  It is a game with you.  

A blatant lie, since none of your sources is qualified to discuss the subject or interpret the data. You are dodging. You have no evidence, just propaganda.

Well...if they are not qualified to discuss the subject, then you should be able to FACTUALLY discredit them.  Just because you point a finger and accuse them is no fact.  YOU are DODGING and YOU KNOW IT.

 

I don't have to factually discredit them, scientists already did. YOU have to factually discredit the scientists, and using discredited media articles will never accomplish that. YOU ARE DODGING AND YOU KNOW IT! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

Hmm....except that those scientists were found to be fudging data and committing FRAUD.  Fraud does not have to be done by someone with a PhD.  If a PhD has committed fraud, what makes them qualified to even claim they are scientists?  Better yet, what makes you qualified to declare them qualified? 

 

Oh...but while you are avoiding answering the questions, you might actually want to go back and READ the links I posted.  In more than one of them, the reporter happens to have a PhD in a science field.  There is one link, the forum where there are 5 editors of 5 scientific journals who have guess what....PhDs in guess what...a science field.  So you can make all the excuses you want and believe your little religion but you are unable to convince me of your dogmatic stand.  Oh...you ought to apologize to Brian for calling him religious.  Maybe you do need to 'EVOLVE'.  


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout wrote:Vastet

 

 

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout wrote:Vastet

Burnedout wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:
Are you calling this a lie?   http://www.naturalnews.com/045808_global_warming_fraud_data_manipulation_NOAA.html#%23ixzz36EOG14pU   NOAA caught in a lie about warmest year.  They were forced to change their website.      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/on-the-hijacking-of-the-american-meteorological-society-ams/ Member of the American Meteorological Society calls BS on global warming.     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mIVZnnqm7o#t=149 Lead advocate for Global Warming/Climate Change was debunked on Australian TV by other scientists no less.   http://www.sott.net/article/276813-Peer-reviewed-paper-says-its-OK-to-manipulate-data-exaggerate-climate-claims Paper telling Global warming scientists to manipulate data.
Those sources aren't qualified to assess the various scenarios they attempt to. Try again.

 

You are dodging.  Please cite which part of what they say is incorrect.  

No you are dodging. Giving sources that are equivalent to an English teacher grading a math test is a demonstration of how much effort you are putting into denying reality. You have yet to provide a single credible source to overturn the science of climate change. You're just making a fool of yourself.

 

I simply have poked holes in the sources you run to.  You cannot deny the facts of those articles I have posted.  At least you don't even try.  All you do is try to reflect back with accuasations and diversion with no sources.  It is a game with you.  

A blatant lie, since none of your sources is qualified to discuss the subject or interpret the data. You are dodging. You have no evidence, just propaganda.

Well...if they are not qualified to discuss the subject, then you should be able to FACTUALLY discredit them.  Just because you point a finger and accuse them is no fact.  YOU are DODGING and YOU KNOW IT.

 

I don't have to factually discredit them, scientists already did. YOU have to factually discredit the scientists, and using discredited media articles will never accomplish that. YOU ARE DODGING AND YOU KNOW IT! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

Hmm....except that those scientists were found to be fudging data and committing FRAUD.  Fraud does not have to be done by someone with a PhD.  If a PhD has committed fraud, what makes them qualified to even claim they are scientists?  Better yet, what makes you qualified to declare them qualified? 

 

Oh...but while you are avoiding answering the questions, you might actually want to go back and READ the links I posted.  In more than one of them, the reporter happens to have a PhD in a science field.  There is one link, the forum where there are 5 editors of 5 scientific journals who have guess what....PhDs in guess what...a science field.  So you can make all the excuses you want and believe your little religion but you are unable to convince me of your dogmatic stand.  Oh...you ought to apologize to Brian for calling him religious.  Maybe you do need to 'EVOLVE'.  

You have failed to prove the vast majority of the scientific community has committed fraud.

Oh but while you avoid reality, you might want to stop reading crackpot right wing zombies and conspiracy theorists and tabloids and go back to school so you can learn science yourself. Once you graduate, if you have the brains to (which I doubt), you can use actual facts and data to reveal to the whole world that climate change is a lie. Or you'll find out it's true.

Btw, you're as religious as Brian is.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Burnedout
Posts: 540
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Burnedout

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Burnedout wrote:
Are you calling this a lie?   http://www.naturalnews.com/045808_global_warming_fraud_data_manipulation_NOAA.html#%23ixzz36EOG14pU   NOAA caught in a lie about warmest year.  They were forced to change their website.      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/on-the-hijacking-of-the-american-meteorological-society-ams/ Member of the American Meteorological Society calls BS on global warming.     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mIVZnnqm7o#t=149 Lead advocate for Global Warming/Climate Change was debunked on Australian TV by other scientists no less.   http://www.sott.net/article/276813-Peer-reviewed-paper-says-its-OK-to-manipulate-data-exaggerate-climate-claims Paper telling Global warming scientists to manipulate data.
Those sources aren't qualified to assess the various scenarios they attempt to. Try again.

 

You are dodging.  Please cite which part of what they say is incorrect.  

No you are dodging. Giving sources that are equivalent to an English teacher grading a math test is a demonstration of how much effort you are putting into denying reality. You have yet to provide a single credible source to overturn the science of climate change. You're just making a fool of yourself.

 

I simply have poked holes in the sources you run to.  You cannot deny the facts of those articles I have posted.  At least you don't even try.  All you do is try to reflect back with accuasations and diversion with no sources.  It is a game with you.  

A blatant lie, since none of your sources is qualified to discuss the subject or interpret the data. You are dodging. You have no evidence, just propaganda.

Well...if they are not qualified to discuss the subject, then you should be able to FACTUALLY discredit them.  Just because you point a finger and accuse them is no fact.  YOU are DODGING and YOU KNOW IT.

 

I don't have to factually discredit them, scientists already did. YOU have to factually discredit the scientists, and using discredited media articles will never accomplish that. YOU ARE DODGING AND YOU KNOW IT! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

Hmm....except that those scientists were found to be fudging data and committing FRAUD.  Fraud does not have to be done by someone with a PhD.  If a PhD has committed fraud, what makes them qualified to even claim they are scientists?  Better yet, what makes you qualified to declare them qualified? 

 

Oh...but while you are avoiding answering the questions, you might actually want to go back and READ the links I posted.  In more than one of them, the reporter happens to have a PhD in a science field.  There is one link, the forum where there are 5 editors of 5 scientific journals who have guess what....PhDs in guess what...a science field.  So you can make all the excuses you want and believe your little religion but you are unable to convince me of your dogmatic stand.  Oh...you ought to apologize to Brian for calling him religious.  Maybe you do need to 'EVOLVE'.  

You have failed to prove the vast majority of the scientific community has committed fraud. Oh but while you avoid reality, you might want to stop reading crackpot right wing zombies and conspiracy theorists and tabloids and go back to school so you can learn science yourself. Once you graduate, if you have the brains to (which I doubt), you can use actual facts and data to reveal to the whole world that climate change is a lie. Or you'll find out it's true. Btw, you're as religious as Brian is.

Hmmm...

Quote:
Crackpot right wing zombie and conspiracy theorists and tabloids
.....Please pull the threads I posted and show what spectifically fits that description and explain how.  Oh and while you are doing that...you might want to quit using fallacies, like ....
Quote:
Once you graduate, if you have the brains to (which I doubt), you can use actual facts and and data...
 that is an Ad Hominem attack, here is the link for your perusal https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem (I would like to kindly request that a mod please fix this link, I cannot get it to work.  Thank you.).

When you say

Quote:
vast majority of the scientific community
.  That is a rather trite expression, but you are making an assumption.  What constitutes a "majority" of them, please define.  Also, when you make an assmumption such as that, you are using actually two fallacies.  The first of which is Appeal to authority (I will post the link in a next post since, for some reason, this format will not allow another cut and paste), and appeal to consensus (again, I will post the link in the following post).

Since you are accusing me of not having an education, what proof do you have?  Do you have my school transcripts?  Getting personal now aren't we. But since you are bringing up my qualifications, what are YOURS?  

 

 

 


Burnedout
Posts: 540
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
 https://yourlogicalfallacyi

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority "> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority  (could I please get a mod to fix this link?  Thank you).

 

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Burnedout wrote:Please pull

Burnedout wrote:
Please pull the threads I posted and show what spectifically fits that description and explain how.  

All of them.

Burnedout wrote:
 that is an Ad Hominem attack,

No it is a statement of fact directly relevant to the conversation. An ad hominem is a distraction from the topic at hand, not a statement directly relevant to the topic at hand. While you're back in school learning about science, you might want to brush up on your logic as well. You can start by reading your own link.

Burnedout wrote:
That is a rather trite expression, but you are making an assumption.

No, I'm not. The vast majority of the scientific community agrees climate change is real. There are papers and petitions all over the world demonstrating this. Look it up. You won't give me links proviing your bullshit so I won't give you links to reality.
Therefore they must ALL be participating in fraud if it is a lie. But as we've seen, you simply lack the brain power to add 2 plus 2.

Burnedout wrote:
Since you are accusing me of not having an education, what proof do you have?  Do you have my school transcripts?

I have your posts, which demonstrate that you know shit about English media in general, and science especially. Since both are requirements for graduation, you must never have graduated from a real school.

Burnedout wrote:
But since you are bringing up my qualifications, what are YOURS?  

Infinitely better than yours, obviously.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Burnedout
Posts: 540
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Burnedout

This comment has been moved here.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Keep looking, eventually

This comment has been moved here.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
O.oTrollception.

O.o

Trollception.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
No longer! lol

No longer! lol

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.