...new NASA study was interpreted by skeptics to reveal that global warming is not man-made.
If you allow someone to helpfully "interpret" what NASA is saying rather than going to NASA themselves then you reap what you sow. Cut out the middle-man and all the climate denier talking points collapse instantly.
...most go even further to say some scientists falsify data to support their own beliefs.
Yep. It's a global scientific conspiracy. Them there scientists is up to no good. We didn't come from no munkey.
...69% say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40% who say this is Very Likely...
Somehow, by magic, "scientists" have "falsified research". The actual details are permanently hazy but it must be true. How does one go about falsifying an entire scientific field supported by all the Earth Sciences over many decades? Can anybody think of an actual mechanism? Mind rays? Black helicopters? Hostages?
Fifty-seven percent (57%) believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming...
But 47% now believe the media makes global warming appear to be worse than it really is...
Sure, it's the media's fault. There's just no way for a simple soul to bypass the media entirely and...go the NASA website or something wild and crazy and radical like that.
Sixty-seven percent (67%) are following news stories on global warming at least somewhat closely, while 32% are not.
News stories? They are following news stories? That's where they get their science information? That explains a lot. Suckers.
Here you go Cedric. This is a link to a page full of I Love Nasa t-shirts. I couldnt find any I love Astro turfing shirts, sorry. Can we move on from Nasa as your one source, there is no scientific consensus and all your demigods in the climate change hysteria keep falling. GISS is on its way, Hansen has been caught falsifying data before, and has claimed errors when confronted. Eventually he will fall like the rest. Climate Change is important, but not left to the clowns at Nasa. So please find another legitimate source for your argument.
I ran across this charming quote the other day which precisely describes Cedric's debating strategy: "...First he challenged me to find a black swan, and then he ruled out all my swans because they were black. The fact that all these great intellects had come to the [skeptics'] view was somehow or other a proof either that they were not great intellects or that they had not really come to that view. The argument thus stood in a charmingly convenient form: "All men that count have come to my conclusion; for if they come to your conclusion they do not count." ~ G. K. Chesterton
Any time you like. Every single scientific community on the planet is on the same page as NASA. They are all good. In fact, they are all excellent. They do real work.
Pick your favourite one: NOAA, the USGS, the Royal Society, The British Antarctic Survey, the AGU, the American Chemical Society, The American Meterological Society, The American Quarterny Association, the NAS, the AAAS, the American Physical Society, the European Science Society etc.
...there is no scientific consensus...
Then why are climate deniers forced to use blogs to prop up their beliefs? They can't use primary sources of information. They have to get their information from middle-men.
If there's no consensus, then where is the body of scientific work that matches the other side? Why is Foxnews forced to recycle the same tiny number of nursing home escapees when they need someone with a Phd? It's always the same team. There are never any new faces.
NASA did not lie to you about the moon landings. NASA is not lying to you now about climate change.
There is no global conspiracy of scientists. The very idea is silly. There's no way to make such a conspiracy work. Conspiracies, by their very nature, cannot be global.
Every single scientific community that believes in global warming, Cedric, is infested with leftists. These "communities" became infested with leftists because:
- anyone with real scientific prowess went into private industry
- self-selection into a comfortable goverment-supported lifestyle with captive audiences
- weeding out of the profession of anyone with contrary opinions
- selective invitations or support of like-minded people.
The same methods by which every other bigot excludes disfavored classes, academia uses to exclude those disinclined to support their beliefs.
Academia: you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
(Hmm, my previous post vanished again. Sorry if this is a re-post)
Every single scientific community that believes in global warming...
Two problems here.
1) It's all the scientific communities. Not some. Oh no! All of them. Every single one of them on the planet. No exceptions. ALL. OF. THEM.
2)They don't "believe" anything. Science is not a religion. Honest.
...is infested with leftists...
Infested with Jews? Oh, you said "Leftists"? Oops, my bad. Wrong global conspiracy. Easy mistake to make. So how did the Jews (sorry, "Leftists") take over the global scientific community? Expose the conspiracy.
...anyone with real scientific prowess went into private industry...
Oh, well that makes a lot of sense. Not.
...self-selection into...
How do the "leftists" "self-select"? What's the mechanism that they use?
...weeding out of the profession of anyone with contrary opinions...
Again, how? How do the "leftists" do the actual weeding out? How do they know who to weed out in the first place? If the son or daughter of a libertarian family gets their PHd, how do they get silenced forever? What’s the mechanism?
...selective invitations or support of like-minded people.
Again, HOW? How do the bad guys know who to "invite" or "support"? Do they read minds? Is there a secret international group of gatekeepers that magically disappear peer-reviewed science papers before they get typed up? What's the mechanism? You need a plausible explanation on how "the leftists" actually do it. What are the nuts and bolts of the operation?
A global conspiracy doesn't just happen. It requires that the conspirators keep their secrets safe and protect themselves from their enemies.
You are not explaining anything. You can't. However you subconsciously understand that, for the global conspiracy to work, you MUST somehow explain the problem of where all the "real scientists" went to. You MUST explain somehow how the bad guys "self-select" and do the "weeding out" and "support like-minded people". If the global scientific community does not do these basic, vital things then...it all collapses and the conspiracy is exposed.
I agree with you. They must do these things.
Yet it's not possible. The instant you try to cobble together a workable framework for a global conspiracy, it breaks down. A global conspiracy is a contradiction in terms. Embracing conspiracy theories forces the paranoid crackpots to endlessly create more ad-hoc rationalizations. It just gets bigger and bigger and bigger.
Cedric, you are an idiot. even now the 'scientists', so-called, are not on the same page. You have universalized on the idea of a 'scientific community' when, really, you are merely using government scientists whom we ALL know are basically told, what to tell us. Science, at least those sciences associated with the US government, are not to be relied on. They are caught WEEKLY and sometimes DAILY lying! Look man, the ice caps are growing, not shrinking now...., the climate is now cooling, not warming, and, if you took elementary earth science, you know, in the 6th grade, you would have already concluded that the volcanic activity, which is outrageous right now around the globe, spews sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. THAT same sulfur dioxide reflects sunlight back into space, THUS cooling the earth, not warming it. YOU should use different sources, sir; the entire world knows our government is corrupt and void of truth, how can you, who lives here, think any differently? Use independent scientists; the ones employed by the United states can no longer (if ever) be relied on. Remember the scientific process which requires tanglible proof? Which requires Evidence? Which requires fact? Perhaps YOU, sir, should revisit the Scientific process. (google it, if you don't remember what it is, when you find IT...you will find that this governments scientists have completely abandoned it; they would prefer to sit around philosophizing about bird-brained theories like 'M-theory' or 'String theory' both of which are just plain stupid!0
9 comments:
...new NASA study was interpreted by skeptics to reveal that global warming is not man-made.
If you allow someone to helpfully "interpret" what NASA is saying rather than going to NASA themselves then you reap what you sow. Cut out the middle-man and all the climate denier talking points collapse instantly.
...most go even further to say some scientists falsify data to support their own beliefs.
Yep. It's a global scientific conspiracy. Them there scientists is up to no good. We didn't come from no munkey.
...69% say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40% who say this is Very Likely...
Somehow, by magic, "scientists" have "falsified research". The actual details are permanently hazy but it must be true. How does one go about falsifying an entire scientific field supported by all the Earth Sciences over many decades? Can anybody think of an actual mechanism?
Mind rays? Black helicopters? Hostages?
Fifty-seven percent (57%) believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming...
Score another win for the Marshall Institute. The same stirling service they provided for their community to "inform" the public about tobacco is the same service they now provide to "inform" people about global warming. Don't change a system that works.
But 47% now believe the media makes global warming appear to be worse than it really is...
Sure, it's the media's fault. There's just no way for a simple soul to bypass the media entirely and...go the NASA website or something wild and crazy and radical like that.
Sixty-seven percent (67%) are following news stories on global warming at least somewhat closely, while 32% are not.
News stories? They are following news stories? That's where they get their science information? That explains a lot. Suckers.
Here you go Cedric.
This is a link to a page full of I Love Nasa t-shirts.
I couldnt find any I love Astro turfing shirts, sorry.
Can we move on from Nasa as your one source, there is no scientific consensus and all your demigods in the climate change hysteria keep falling. GISS is on its way, Hansen has been caught falsifying data before, and has claimed errors when confronted. Eventually he will fall like the rest.
Climate Change is important, but not left to the clowns at Nasa. So please find another legitimate source for your argument.
oops forgot your I Love Nasa shirt link
http://www.cafepress.com/iheartshirt/937025
I ran across this charming quote the other day which precisely describes Cedric's debating strategy:
"...First he challenged me to find a black swan, and then he ruled out all my swans because they were black. The fact that all these great intellects had come to the [skeptics'] view was somehow or other a proof either that they were not great intellects or that they had not really come to that view. The argument thus stood in a charmingly convenient form: "All men that count have come to my conclusion; for if they come to your conclusion they do not count."
~ G. K. Chesterton
Can we move on from Nasa as your one source...
Any time you like. Every single scientific community on the planet is on the same page as NASA. They are all good. In fact, they are all excellent. They do real work.
Pick your favourite one:
NOAA, the USGS, the Royal Society, The British Antarctic Survey, the AGU, the American Chemical Society, The American Meterological Society, The American Quarterny Association, the NAS, the AAAS, the American Physical Society, the European Science Society etc.
...there is no scientific consensus...
Then why are climate deniers forced to use blogs to prop up their beliefs? They can't use primary sources of information.
They have to get their information from middle-men.
If there's no consensus, then where is the body of scientific work that matches the other side? Why is Foxnews forced to recycle the same tiny number of nursing home escapees when they need someone with a Phd? It's always the same team. There are never any new faces.
If there's no consensus, then why resort to faking a "list"? That's what the creationists do.
NASA did not lie to you about the moon landings.
NASA is not lying to you now about climate change.
There is no global conspiracy of scientists. The very idea is silly. There's no way to make such a conspiracy work. Conspiracies, by their very nature, cannot be global.
Every single scientific community that believes in global warming, Cedric, is infested with leftists. These "communities" became infested with leftists because:
- anyone with real scientific prowess went into private industry
- self-selection into a comfortable goverment-supported lifestyle with captive audiences
- weeding out of the profession of anyone with contrary opinions
- selective invitations or support of like-minded people.
The same methods by which every other bigot excludes disfavored classes, academia uses to exclude those disinclined to support their beliefs.
Academia: you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
(Hmm, my previous post vanished again. Sorry if this is a re-post)
Every single scientific community that believes in global warming...
Two problems here.
1) It's all the scientific communities. Not some. Oh no! All of them. Every single one of them on the planet. No exceptions. ALL. OF. THEM.
2)They don't "believe" anything.
Science is not a religion. Honest.
...is infested with leftists...
Infested with Jews? Oh, you said "Leftists"? Oops, my bad. Wrong global conspiracy. Easy mistake to make. So how did the Jews (sorry, "Leftists") take over the global scientific community? Expose the conspiracy.
...anyone with real scientific prowess went into private industry...
Oh, well that makes a lot of sense. Not.
...self-selection into...
How do the "leftists" "self-select"? What's the mechanism that they use?
...weeding out of the profession of anyone with contrary opinions...
Again, how?
How do the "leftists" do the actual weeding out? How do they know who to weed out in the first place? If the son or daughter of a libertarian family gets their PHd, how do they get silenced forever? What’s the mechanism?
...selective invitations or support of like-minded people.
Again, HOW? How do the bad guys know who to "invite" or "support"? Do they read minds? Is there a secret international group of gatekeepers that magically disappear peer-reviewed science papers before they get typed up? What's the mechanism? You need a plausible explanation on how "the leftists" actually do it. What are the nuts and bolts of the operation?
A global conspiracy doesn't just happen. It requires that the conspirators keep their secrets safe and protect themselves from their enemies.
You are not explaining anything. You can't.
However you subconsciously understand that, for the global conspiracy to work, you MUST somehow explain the problem of where all the "real scientists" went to. You MUST explain somehow how the bad guys "self-select" and do the "weeding out" and "support like-minded people". If the global scientific community does not do these basic, vital things then...it all collapses and the conspiracy is exposed.
I agree with you. They must do these things.
Yet it's not possible. The instant you try to cobble together a workable framework for a global conspiracy, it breaks down. A global conspiracy is a contradiction in terms.
Embracing conspiracy theories forces the paranoid crackpots to endlessly create more ad-hoc rationalizations. It just gets bigger and bigger and bigger.
For example: When did NASA become "infested by leftists"? Was it before or after they helped America win the Cold War?
Cedric, you are an idiot. even now the 'scientists', so-called, are not on the same page. You have universalized on the idea of a 'scientific community' when, really, you are merely using government scientists whom we ALL know are basically told, what to tell us. Science, at least those sciences associated with the US government, are not to be relied on. They are caught WEEKLY and sometimes DAILY lying! Look man, the ice caps are growing, not shrinking now...., the climate is now cooling, not warming, and, if you took elementary earth science, you know, in the 6th grade, you would have already concluded that the volcanic activity, which is outrageous right now around the globe, spews sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. THAT same sulfur dioxide reflects sunlight back into space, THUS cooling the earth, not warming it. YOU should use different sources, sir; the entire world knows our government is corrupt and void of truth, how can you, who lives here, think any differently? Use independent scientists; the ones employed by the United states can no longer (if ever) be relied on. Remember the scientific process which requires tanglible proof? Which requires Evidence? Which requires fact? Perhaps YOU, sir, should revisit the Scientific process. (google it, if you don't remember what it is, when you find IT...you will find that this governments scientists have completely abandoned it; they would prefer to sit around philosophizing about bird-brained theories like 'M-theory' or 'String theory' both of which are just plain stupid!0
Post a Comment