Author Topic: Interesting piece on the rejection of shared science  (Read 10339 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 88575
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting piece on the rejection of shared science
« Reply #25 on: April 16, 2016, 08:28:28 PM »

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Interesting piece on the rejection of shared science
« Reply #26 on: April 16, 2016, 09:12:11 PM »
You can always count on 'teve 'ave  :ROFL:
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9862
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting piece on the rejection of shared science
« Reply #27 on: April 16, 2016, 10:58:38 PM »
Translation:

I mumped up, didn't look at links, and now I look like a tool bag.
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Offline Ptolemy

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 754
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting piece on the rejection of shared science
« Reply #28 on: April 17, 2016, 12:34:15 AM »
RIP to a great truth teller - Bill Gray!

Gray is skeptical of current theories of human-induced global warming, which he says is supported by scientists afraid of losing grant funding and promoted by government leaders and environmentalists seeking world government.

He believes that humans are not responsible for the warming of the earth and has stated that "We're brainwashing our children." He asked, "How can we trust climate forecasts 50 and 100 years into the future (that can’t be verified in our lifetime) when they are not able to make shorter seasonal or yearly forecasts that could be verified?"

Gray said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error. He cites statistics showing that there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperature, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

Gray does not say there has not been any warming, but in 2006 stated "I don't question that. And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."

According to an earlier interview reported by Joel Achenbach, Gray had similarly said that the current warming in the past decades is a natural cycle, driven by a global ocean circulation that manifests itself in the North Atlantic Ocean as the Gulf Stream.

In a December 2006 interview with David Harsanyi of The Denver Post, Gray said, "They've been brainwashing us for 20 years, starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15–20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was." In this interview, Gray cites the global cooling article in Newsweek from 1975 as evidence that such a scare has happened in the past.

Gray has been an active scientist publishing and speaking about weather, hurricanes, and related matters for 60 years. In his presentation to the 7th International Conference on Climate Change sponsored by The Heartland Institute, Gray found virtually no basis to think added CO2 is generating extreme weather events.[citation needed]

The Big Train

  • Guest
Re: Interesting piece on the rejection of shared science
« Reply #29 on: April 17, 2016, 12:35:14 AM »
I'm just gonna say it, I didn't and won't read a word of this

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Interesting piece on the rejection of shared science
« Reply #30 on: April 17, 2016, 07:06:33 AM »
Translation

A stop sign fell on my had, and now I am terrified the sky is falling

Edna, the anti-shazbot! proponent of science
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9862
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting piece on the rejection of shared science
« Reply #31 on: April 17, 2016, 01:38:14 PM »
Translation

A stop sign fell on my had, and now I am terrified the sky is falling

Edna, the anti-shazbot! proponent of science
lol
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9862
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting piece on the rejection of shared science
« Reply #32 on: April 18, 2016, 04:20:12 AM »
RIP to a great truth teller - Bill Gray!

Gray is skeptical of current theories of human-induced global warming, which he says is supported by scientists afraid of losing grant funding and promoted by government leaders and environmentalists seeking world government.

He believes that humans are not responsible for the warming of the earth and has stated that "We're brainwashing our children." He asked, "How can we trust climate forecasts 50 and 100 years into the future (that can’t be verified in our lifetime) when they are not able to make shorter seasonal or yearly forecasts that could be verified?"

Gray said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error. He cites statistics showing that there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperature, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.

Gray does not say there has not been any warming, but in 2006 stated "I don't question that. And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."

According to an earlier interview reported by Joel Achenbach, Gray had similarly said that the current warming in the past decades is a natural cycle, driven by a global ocean circulation that manifests itself in the North Atlantic Ocean as the Gulf Stream.

In a December 2006 interview with David Harsanyi of The Denver Post, Gray said, "They've been brainwashing us for 20 years, starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15–20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was." In this interview, Gray cites the global cooling article in Newsweek from 1975 as evidence that such a scare has happened in the past.

Gray has been an active scientist publishing and speaking about weather, hurricanes, and related matters for 60 years. In his presentation to the 7th International Conference on Climate Change sponsored by The Heartland Institute, Gray found virtually no basis to think added CO2 is generating extreme weather events.[citation needed]

LOL you posted an article from 2006 that has been proven wrong by simple observation over the last 10 years.  :lol:
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 59542
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting piece on the rejection of shared science
« Reply #33 on: April 18, 2016, 08:25:20 AM »
Warmest alarmist propagandists still fighting FOIA and Congressional subpoenas every step of the way even though they're publicly funded and work for the taxpayers.

Now warmest alarmest propagandist AG's colluding with Big Green to launch a massive gov't witch hunt.

They're running low on jackboot polish. 

Online star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 67441
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting piece on the rejection of shared science
« Reply #34 on: April 18, 2016, 08:44:31 AM »
Big Green  :D
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 38078
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting piece on the rejection of shared science
« Reply #35 on: April 18, 2016, 09:21:01 AM »
Scientists have zero to study these days if it wasn't for climate.  Big Science is lobbying their ass off to block all that stuff.  Worse than unions, imo.

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Interesting piece on the rejection of shared science
« Reply #36 on: April 18, 2016, 12:39:22 PM »
Scientists have zero to study these days if it wasn't for climate.  Big Science is lobbying their ass off to block all that stuff.  Worse than unions, imo.

I'm not saying it's not something we should reasearch, because I believe it is, but I would have to think by and far the largest amount of money available to scientists is to study "climate change", such that it is inventivized.

Even the loonie weirdos who post here think "big oil" is throwing billions at it, and what big oil spends is dwarfed by what governments spend globally.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Online star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 67441
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting piece on the rejection of shared science
« Reply #37 on: April 18, 2016, 12:46:41 PM »
It should be studied, but they need to reach conclusions I agree with or else they are bias - pro-science fsd
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline CNS

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 38078
  • I'm Athletes
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting piece on the rejection of shared science
« Reply #38 on: April 18, 2016, 12:49:24 PM »
Man, NASA should really start looking into this.  Maybe their budget wouldn't be cut a bunch and stuff.



PFFFT

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Interesting piece on the rejection of shared science
« Reply #39 on: April 18, 2016, 12:50:22 PM »
Rapid fire tapouts. Pew Pew pew
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline Ptolemy

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 754
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting piece on the rejection of shared science
« Reply #40 on: April 18, 2016, 03:25:54 PM »

LOL you posted an article from 2006 that has been proven wrong by simple observation over the last 10 years.  :lol:

"simple observation" being you going outside and gauging the temperature, going in and marking it down in your spiral notebook leftover from your Climate Alarmism class, and then coming here to tell us that man is destroying the planet?

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 59542
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting piece on the rejection of shared science
« Reply #41 on: April 18, 2016, 06:10:58 PM »
It should be studied, but they need to reach conclusions I agree with or else they are bias - pro-science fsd

Or you know, actually make their publicly funded research available to be checked and peer reviewed.   Not tying it up behind government minutia if not outright breaking numerous laws to avoid having their work analyzed by third parties.

Of course, if you're like Whackadoodle who falls for the complete BS they toss out to explain their constant "adjustment" of historical temp data, and total avoidance of the idea that the vast majority of temp data comes from the same subset of sources that they're constantly manipulating to cool the past, and make the current appear warmer.



Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9862
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting piece on the rejection of shared science
« Reply #42 on: April 19, 2016, 07:50:08 AM »
It should be studied, but they need to reach conclusions I agree with or else they are bias - pro-science fsd

Or you know, actually make their publicly funded research available to be checked and peer reviewed.   Not tying it up behind government minutia if not outright breaking numerous laws to avoid having their work analyzed by third parties.

Of course, if you're like Whackadoodle who falls for the complete BS they toss out to explain their constant "adjustment" of historical temp data, and total avoidance of the idea that the vast majority of temp data comes from the same subset of sources that they're constantly manipulating to cool the past, and make the current appear warmer.

Look at this libtard glacier doing another alarmist "temperature adjustment."   You know big green science is making a mint off this crap when they're able to pay off big glacier.
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Interesting piece on the rejection of shared science
« Reply #43 on: April 19, 2016, 10:33:23 AM »
I think I would characterize that as a libtarded anecdote, not a libtarded glacier.

Slightly more compelling, however, than, hey its hot today, Probs climate man made change warming. So there's that.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline Ptolemy

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 754
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting piece on the rejection of shared science
« Reply #44 on: April 19, 2016, 10:35:01 AM »

Look at this libtard glacier doing another alarmist "temperature adjustment."   You know big green science is making a mint off this crap when they're able to pay off big glacier.

The hilarity in this comes when you understand that Warmists believe carbon taxes will stop this from happening.

Online steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 88575
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting piece on the rejection of shared science
« Reply #45 on: April 19, 2016, 11:03:21 AM »
like, some of you may have some valid points but they get lost because you converse with each other like a bunch of downgrades. just an fyi.

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9862
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting piece on the rejection of shared science
« Reply #46 on: April 19, 2016, 12:43:44 PM »
I think I would characterize that as a libtarded anecdote, not a libtarded glacier.

Slightly more compelling, however, than, hey its hot today, Probs climate man made change warming. So there's that.

I don't think you know what the anecdote critique is. 
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9862
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting piece on the rejection of shared science
« Reply #47 on: April 19, 2016, 12:44:48 PM »
like, some of you may have some valid points but they get lost because you converse with each other like a bunch of downgrades. just an fyi.

Problem is that one side can't interact with society in an educated manner and can only recite talking points and refuses to look at peer reviewed information. 
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Interesting piece on the rejection of shared science
« Reply #48 on: April 19, 2016, 12:50:28 PM »
Edna, you're one of the "downgrades"

I don't know why you gaf what that loser posts, anyways.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline _33

  • The Inventor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10540
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting piece on the rejection of shared science
« Reply #49 on: April 27, 2016, 08:19:51 PM »
like, some of you may have some valid points but they get lost because you converse with each other like a bunch of downgrades. just an fyi.

Problem is that one side can't interact with society in an educated manner and can only recite talking points and refuses to look at peer reviewed information.

Hey honey could you turn the TV down I'm trying to pore over these peer reviewed studies on man made climate change and develop my own talking points for message boarding.