118
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 14 Aug, 2019 09:15 am
@MontereyJack,
That is incorrect. Climate change journals have been caught suppressing data that does not conform to leftist ideology.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Wed 14 Aug, 2019 09:22 am
@oralloy,
So far you've only cited one case which was not in fact suppression. And from that one bogus example yoy are erecting a whole card castle of unproven conspiratorial speculation.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 14 Aug, 2019 09:30 am
@MontereyJack,
Refusing to publish data because it is inconvenient to leftist ideology is very much suppression.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Wed 14 Aug, 2019 09:38 am
@oralloy,
If it was suppressed, how did you find out about it? This was all months if not years ago. Give the original cites again. As I say, hyour cnntention that there is some sort of wholesale suppression and fudging of data is pure speculation from one pretty dubious example, and it is. And your contention that it's leftist ideology is pure right wing ideological drivel. It's multiply proven science.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Wed 14 Aug, 2019 09:47 am
@MontereyJack,
And you really have a double standard here. If there is something you disagree with ideologically and you find ONE case you can disagree with in a huge body of evidence thst says ut us si, you will throw out the entire thing. But if there is soething you agree with ideologically and there are multiple evidences that disagree with it, you will defend your view with sbsurd persistence in the face of the evidence it's worng. Double standard all the way. Of course I am referring to oralloy in this, tho I inadvertently referred to my previous post.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 14 Aug, 2019 10:13 am
@MontereyJack,
That is incorrect. If I see evidence that I am wrong about something, I acknowledge the error.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 14 Aug, 2019 10:35 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
If it was suppressed, how did you find out about it?

The scientists complained about climate journals suppressing their data.



MontereyJack wrote:
This was all months if not years ago. Give the original cites again.

Quote:
A group of us noted that the snowpack in the Cascades was NOT rapidly melting away, in contrast to some publications by some local climate scientists and publicized by Mayor Nickels. The reaction was intense. One of my colleagues, Mark Albright, who was the first to notice the lack of snowpack loss was fired as associate State Climatologist and the media went wild...we called it Snowpackgate...and it got national attention. I was told in the hallways to keep quiet about it...the denier types would take advantage of it!

We then wrote a paper on the subject (the main contributor being Mark Stoelinga) and submitted it to the Journal of Climate. I have published a lot of papers in my life (roughly 100) and I never had problems like we had with this paper. Very biased associate editor and some reviewers. Four review cycles and it was about to be turned down, until we appealed to the editor, who proved fair and reasonable. This paper has now been accepted for publication, but it really revealed to me the bias in the system. Here is the paper if you are interested:

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-pdf&doi=10.1175%2F2009JCLI2911.1

Poor papers with significant technical problems, but reflecting the "official" line, get published easily, while papers indicating the global warming is weaker or delayed, go through hurdle after hurdle.

I have heard case after case of similar treatment...so this is no anomaly.

http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2009/12/climategate.html


Quote:
For example, climatologist John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville accepts that global warming is happening, but he says there is a lot of uncertainty about its causes and impacts. He says he has trouble getting some of his results published.

"I've done a pretty thorough study of snowfall of the Southern Sierra mountains of California, and the Southern Sierra find no downward trend in snowfall," he says.

That's important because snowfall is forecast to decline because of global warming, and that would seriously affect California's water supply. Christy says he has tried three times to get his paper published. So far, it's been rejected, and he suspects it's because scientists are trying to stifle his message.

"Everyone from the secretary of Energy [on down] who has talked about the snowfall in the Sierra going away will not find any comfort in the fact that the trends in snowfall are essentially zero for the last hundred years," he says.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120846593


Additional links:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060413182310/opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/10835291/Scientists-accused-of-suppressing-research-because-of-climate-sceptic-argument.html



MontereyJack wrote:
It's multiply proven science.

Biased data is not proof.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/18/2019 at 08:17:50