|
joether -> RE: Climate scientist under investigation for witchcraft (2/26/2015 4:49:09 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
You should really try to get your information straight and correct. While your doing that, try to sit down and read some of the material this man has said/published, HERE.
I'll be happy to have anyone read your Daily Camera link and find the information that I failed to get "straight and correct" (source here) .
Your information and link were not only incomplete, but trying to push a political ideology where none exist. The person calling for this 'witch hunt' is the person accused. So let's not push the drama up pass where it should be: just the facts.
Check out that second paragraph from the Representative accusing the good doctor. It establishes the accusation(s). That funding by corporations, in the subject matter becomes murky at best and conspiracy-wise at worst. That if these scientists took funding from the the industry it would undermine the credibility of any of their works. Subsequently some of their testimony before Congress would also be questioned. Worst if other scientists have run the research and found different results and can verify the information. Did those scientists do it to discredit the accused? Or simply give them the benefit of doubt and check anyways?
Mr. Pielker's article is used to defend himself before the public eye. An granted the public eye is not as scientifically savvy with the information being discussed. So why is he not taking his findings to the scientific community? To have things peer-reviewed? It has, and some of it has come back as 'junk science'. Not because the peers have a political angle like you would accuse; but they walk through the research and find results that are different from Mr. Pielker's studies.
Academics get called on their research all the time, Kirata. That is something your not understanding. Helps to have a good scientific background to know this stuff. When called on the research, its up to the researchers to explain to the scientific community how they went about the whole process. New discoveries are often viewed with steep skepticism. As such other scientists will do the same research and publish their findings. I'm not talking just two or three such studies, but hundreds. Not just here in America, but world-wide. Something else you seem to forget about science; its not only done in the United States of America. What does some scientist out in India care about the 'political football' match underway in America over Climate Change?
That you didnt read my link is a bit of a lie. How would you know what was in the link, if you never went there? Likewise, to create a 'counter argument' without finding what the link I was giving was explaining? One of two things is true here:
A) You read the link and understood that your information was fairly limited. That your information was being used in the 'political football match' rather than understanding the real questions at the heart of the matter. An did not bother to check if the information was accurate or correct before publishing. In which case, you should have been thanking me for supplying good information about the situation and this one particular individual.
B ) You didn't read the links, assumed your viewpoints are perfect and correct. In which case your not really much of a scientist or researcher. Your a fanatic to a cause that is just plain silly. You wish to attack and undermine the same science that is used in many different applications and systems. On thousands if not tens of thousands of other ideas. The methods scientist use to study Venus, is the same as here on Earth. That medical doctors hired physics to help devise treatment plans to take into account the pull of gravity on the human body. Geologists use some of the same ideas and concepts found in the Theory of Climate Change to study the Moon which is 'a world apart' from Earth to understand how it may have developed.
That you out-thought science, is pretty laughable. How did your words appear on my screen? Explain it to me without using science. Because your attacking science without knowledge of it. And attacking a concept within science that is used in many other places. It shows the depth of your ignorance. An ignorant people of science, trying to push a political attack, are called 'deniers'.
Recently on another thread regarding Climate Change I asked you to explain the diminishing Arctic ice. Why the extent of it and the volume have both been decreasing. That you couldn't answer either one or both in a scientific manner, showed how little you understand what is being discussed. Volume, one of two concepts I was explaining; is a pretty damn basic concept in science. Its usage spans many scientific disciplines. You were taking issue with volume, like 'if you can undermine this concept, you undermine all of Climate Change'. No, volume is a pretty concrete concept compared to say 'how to harness anti-matter' for usage.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata
Perhaps you could assist with something specific.
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
Its well known that you are a denier of the Theory of Climate Change. That you look for anything and everything that might, in some way, disprove things.
Looking for things that could call a theory into question makes someone an anti-scientific "denier"? That is science, bozo. That's what science does.
You....REALLY...have no idea what your babbling about, do you? For a scientist to discover something that helps mankind grow and develop, is quite an achievement. But to be known for that achievement, it takes them establishing a concept so new and unheard of, to have other scientists check the research over and over to determine if its true or not. Likewise, scientists do test accepted scientific knowledge all the time to see if the concepts are still correct. Imagine if someone discovered water in a cavern that was in a pool on the ceiling rather than the floor. This would certainty call the Theory of Gravity into question.
You look at things from a simplistic viewpoint. Your understanding of the world according to science is extremely limited. Could you explain the parts of your computer? After that, explain the sub parts and why its all put together as it is? Could you explain how your hard drive is constructed? How about why cars from the '70s rusted more extensively and quickly compared to those in 2015? No, I don't want a 'cut/paste' of information, nor a link. I want you to explain it. The science of the answer, not just the answer.
Your a denier because you just do not understand the material before you. Do you really think your the first denier whom latched on to some scientists under fire for their view on Climate Change (or any other Theory)? That you and other deniers often look at the tiny minority of discredited scientists and claiming their views are in fact true; even though you dont understand what they are explaining. That's called 'arrogance mixed with ignorance'.
What would the Koch brothers stand to gain if the Theory of Climate Change was undermined by false information and lies? If it takes you longer than three seconds to figure out, then this topic is to complicated for you. Likewise, if the Koch brothers had supplied funding for the research to the accused, do you think they would do it in an open manner? Of course not! They would try 'money under the table' schemes. Because we Americans remembered when the Tobacco Industry tried the same tricks to undermine medical science on the dangers of cigarette smoking. I'm betting you took that industry's view on things rather than the research by science at the time too!
So, keep calling me 'bozo', Kirata. It really shows that you have....NOTHING....of an argument. You dont have a leg to stand upon in this thread. Just like you haven't had a leg to stand upon in any of the other dozens of threads revolving around an issue in science.
|
|
|
|
