124
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
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
 
  -2  
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
 
  -2  
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
 
  -2  
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.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2019 05:11 am
@oralloy,
what you kep caling biased was merely a disagreement bout quality of research. Their argument was publixhed as wel.Check into snowpack melt this year. Seting new records al acros the SW. Flod waters 25 fet above normal, and that's from river and water people, not climate scientitst. As usual, you try illegitimately to generalize one questionable data point to question literaly millions of data points with no basis to do so. Data, I might ad, from many diferent fields of research, gathered by a variety of approaches, al of which agre GW is real and aproCHING THE TIPING POINT. Hope you enjoy it whenyour biunker in the woods becomes a bunker in a desert.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 7 Sep, 2019 01:18 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
what you keep calling biased was merely a disagreement bout quality of research.

That is incorrect. It is about high quality research being suppressed whenever it is inconvenient to progressive ideology.


MontereyJack wrote:
Their argument was published as well.

That is incorrect. The journal refused to publish their data.


MontereyJack wrote:
Check into snowpack melt this year. Setting new records all across the SW. Flood waters 25 feet above normal, and that's from river and water people, not climate scientist.

There is no way to know that this is true, given the fact that the data is biased and skewed.


MontereyJack wrote:
As usual, you try illegitimately to generalize one questionable data point to question literally millions of data points with no basis to do so.

It is perfectly legitimate to dismiss data when it is clear that it is biased and inaccurate.


MontereyJack wrote:
Data, I might ad, from many different fields of research, gathered by a variety of approaches, all of which agree GW is real and approaCHING THE TIPPING POINT.

I'm not really interested in what biased and skewed data shows.


MontereyJack wrote:
Hope you enjoy it when your bunker in the woods becomes a bunker in a desert.

Why do you keep babbling about bunkers?
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Sep, 2019 11:23 pm
@oralloy,
You're not interedted in data at all.,You're just interested indissing a scientific field with well-established facts and research becsuse you think it has a political bias which disagrees with yours. It doesn't. It deals in facts and rverifiable research. You're bssing your entire diss on one misunderstood (by you) disagreement between researchers, which since that pooin agrees with the GW models.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 8 Sep, 2019 04:25 am
@MontereyJack,
No misunderstanding. The data is biased and skewed. Therefore it is useless.

Whatever the actual truth of global warming is, that truth remains undiscovered.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sun 8 Sep, 2019 06:39 am
@MontereyJack,
The NAS and the American Geophyical Union (AGU) have reviewed all the IPCC data and have found it sound, and have stated that the counter "scientific positions" are merely commercially and politically driven.
I wouldnt worry what a cellar dwelling gamer with "Mensa" delusions opines, hes just reading "dot com" websites posted by Koch funded "foundations"
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 8 Sep, 2019 06:57 am
@farmerman,
Your dishonorable mischaracterizations and your personal attacks are shameful.

If you can't back your demented ideology with facts or logic, you shouldn't bother trying to justify it.
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Sun 8 Sep, 2019 08:15 am
@oralloy,
He's posted facts. Your generalizations in his discussion are illogical re evidence.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 8 Sep, 2019 08:22 am
@MontereyJack,
Wrong again. He posted mischaracterizations and personal attacks.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 Sep, 2019 08:52 am
@oralloy,
wrong again.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 8 Sep, 2019 09:03 am
@MontereyJack,
You cannot provide any examples of me being wrong about anything.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Sun 8 Sep, 2019 10:46 am
@oralloy,
I dont have any invstment in youre delusion other than to scoff at your lies. You may look into the committee reviews by NAS and the AGU back in 2007 when the "hockey stick" blather opened up and was touted as "truth" by other illiterates as Gllenn Beck, Rush Limbough, and David Koch. (Charles Koch understood and reconciled with IPCC results and just kep his mouth shut like a good little older brother)

Your inabilities to acknowledge facts and evidence are well known herein because youve done it many many times before where you, not knowing of what you speak, merely keep repeating your mantra about how folks cant find any mistakes in your assertions. Its not that they cant find any, its just that we are the guys who really believe youre just a wee bit nuts in the head.


Till recently Ive tried to handle you gently, Ive abandoned the effort to believe tht theres anything worth listening to (sorta like our liar-in-chief). Its just fun reading th direction you next tack .

Keep it coming
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 8 Sep, 2019 12:27 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
I dont have any invstment in youre delusion other than to scoff at your lies.

You cannot point out anything untrue in my posts.


farmerman wrote:
Your inabilities to acknowledge facts and evidence are well known herein because youve done it many many times before

The only times I've ever disregarded facts or evidence are when they are unrelated to whatever issue I am talking about.

You cannot provide any examples of me failing to acknowledge facts or evidence under any other circumstances.


farmerman wrote:
where you, not knowing of what you speak,

You cannot provide any examples of me ever talking about something that I do not understand.


farmerman wrote:
merely keep repeating your mantra about how folks cant find any mistakes in your assertions. Its not that they cant find any, its just that we are the guys who really believe youre just a wee bit nuts in the head.

If you could produce any examples to back up your false accusations against me, you would do so.

You're just lying about me because you are incapable of producing an intelligent argument against the facts that I post.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Mon 9 Sep, 2019 06:55 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
The NAS and the American Geophyical Union (AGU) have reviewed all the IPCC data and have found it sound, and have stated that the counter "scientific positions" are merely commercially and politically driven.

You throw into doubt the first statement with the obvious lie in the second.

It is not possible for the NAS, AGU, or even you to know what another is thinking or motivated by. Your arguments have invariably rested on your supposed omniscient knowledge of this. It’s hard to take that seriously.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 10/17/2019 at 08:20:25