|
joether -> RE: why would climate scientists lie? (2/20/2015 10:30:21 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HunterCA
First off, most of what you've said is leftist myth. For instance your 97%. Thousands of papers are written on climate. Of those written, something like 37 papers made a comment one way or another on it being man caused. Leftist took those 37 papers and said 97% all agree on something so the science is settled. What I would ask you is, why do you believe any science is settled. We're still arguing how many planets exist in our solar system.
Try getting your facts straight.... You must have missed the other 13,913 peer reviewed papers supporting climate change.....
How many planets exist near to our sun has....NOTHING...to do with climate change.
quote:
ORIGINAL: HunterCA
You say the oil industry is dumping money to scientists to disput global warming so those scientists shouldn't be trusted. Do you know how much money the government is throwing at scientists to prove there is global warming. By your preposition, your entire argument is moot.
Your wrong, and those 'scientists' in the oil industry are wrong too. Here is why...
When you run an experiment using the scientific method, there is a set of criteria to follow. You form a hypothesis explaining what you think is true. Then develop a set of experiments to test that hypothesis. Followed by collecting data with those experiments. Then looking at the data and forming a conclusion. Finally you publish your work for...PEER REVIEW.
Other scientists take that information and run through the experiments. When they obtain different results from the 'oil industry' scientists, they run the experiments again and again. Unfortunately, their information keep coming up the same, and different from the 'oil industry' scientist. So they contact the 'oil industry' scientist and explain their results. They inquire how the 'oil industry' scientist conducted every aspect of their experiments. The reason is to figure out if the other scientist goofed somewhere in the process. What ends up happening is the scientist figures out that the only way to arrive at the 'oil industry' scientist's conclusion is to do something 'unscientific-like': tamper with the data. Which is something no legitimate scientist would do.
Let me put it another way. A creationist 'scientist' will leave out of their data, anything that disproves the Holy Bible. Most scientists do not leave out things that would disprove climate change. If anything, they would enjoy the idea of explaining their results to the scientific community. That you view scientists like they are religious people; fanatical to 'The Cause', is your problem.
quote:
ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Frankly, most of the senior climate scientist used to be nuclear physisists. When the Berlin Wall went down, so did their government funding. They are not going to let that happen again.
Really? Like those biologists whom where born in the USA, lived in the USA all their lives, and their career is based in the USA? There are quite a number of biologists, zoologists, marine biologists, and botanist in the USA. All these people, according to you, were once nuclear physicists from the other side of the Berlin Wall?
Do you possess enough intelligence to understand how....DUMB....you look with this statement?
That you feel this is some huge conspiracy....REALLY....shows the depth of your mental problems. You have no evidence supporting your viewpoints. You have no facts supporting your viewpoint. You have crazy bullshit that comes from conservative talk radio hosts that dont have a clue about what they babble on the subject matter.
quote:
ORIGINAL: HunterCA
People have been finding temperature data in the models that's been fudged for years. It's just happened again. So, say, you're one guy at NASA collectin temperature data and you fudge it (as is actually being found now) and then everyone else uses it...does that mean all climate scientists are fudging data?
This is a silly argument that doesn't even help your overall case on the subject matter. What it does show to people is that your really not aware of the subject matter you speak on. The question becomes begged: What is your scientific level of understanding? Not of Climate Change, but of science itself? If we were to sit you down with a long exam. With questions from 1st grade to Ph.D. level; where about would the questions be 'to hard to answer' intelligently and informed?
I suspect 'high school' and from 'decades ago' would be the likely answers. Much has changed in science and how scientists look for information on the reality around them from decades ago. Perhaps taking a few classes at the local community college on science would help you understand why your thoughts here are silly. I suggest take something like 'intro to science' before jumping into Chemistry, Physics, and Biology. The reason is, that Climate Change is an advanced concept. Science is like mathematics; it builds upon stuff you previously learned so that once learned, your ready for the information that comes next.
quote:
ORIGINAL: HunterCA
I can go on with the errors in your statement, but I'm guessing it won't matter to you.
I could list out the OP's errors. The difference is, mine would be based upon science and knowledge of science. Yours would be based upon....something. Whether one could call it 'science' or just 'babble' remains to be seen.
|
|
|
|
