131
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 10 Sep, 2019 09:49 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
Oh yes you are. You were foolish enough to believe the lies of the GW deniers and take their hysterical 'hoax' howls seriously.

The scientists who are complaining that their papers are being suppressed are not lying.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 Sep, 2019 12:15 pm
@oralloy,
They arent lying. Theyre just wrong. Znd its bot as if everything iisin one line of agumfent or proof. There are doxens of different indeoendent lines of argument evidence and proof which all come to the same cocllusion from digfferent nindependent routes. Well maybe not dozens bhutmany nonetheless.
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 Sep, 2019 12:45 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Ive always wondered about whether the "return" polar melt water would be entering the thermohyaline at such a rate as to "shut down" the tropical ocean streams like the Gulf Stream and would more quickly induce anothr Ice Age. In which Global Warming would be the parent of Global Cooling.

I don't think it has to enter the system at a particular "rate", I think it just has to hit a certain threshold, at which point the Thermohaline cycle stops. And since that process drives the Gulf Stream (and many other ocean currents), they too will stop.

I believe that this event is exactly what has triggered the last six "spikes" in the temperature record which are obvious in the Vostok Ice Core data. We are currently at the peak of the most recent spike, and if history is any indicator then we are due for the next thermohaline cycle collapse.

The oceans are the foundation of our climate. They carry far more energy than does the atmosphere, so they drive the climate.

Based on current data and historical patterns, Global Cooling is definitely in our future.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 Sep, 2019 12:48 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
As far as I know, there is no reliable global warming data, from any source, so I advise not listening to any of it.

So you just have no data to go by at all? Or do you recommend some other source of data?
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 10 Sep, 2019 04:30 pm
@rosborne979,
There is no reliable data to be had, at all.

I recommend not listening to any claims that anyone makes about global warming.

Maybe it is true. Maybe it isn't. No one knows, and there is no way to tell.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 10 Sep, 2019 04:31 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
They arent lying. Theyre just wrong.

They aren't wrong either. Their data is just inconvenient to the leftist narrative, so it gets suppressed.
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 Sep, 2019 05:26 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

There is no reliable data to be had, at all.

How do you know that? What benchmark are you using to make that statement?
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Sep, 2019 05:54 pm
@oralloy,
Not left wing, all wings. That's what the science says. It's only right wingers who believe in ideology rather than scence who try to put a political spin on it.Don't know oralloy's poliyical spin, but the other denialists here on a2k weigh in with scwild-eyed conspiracy theoriges thar=t AGW is really trying to create a one world government, or that it is just another plot to redistributience wealth, or that it is some sort of hippie plot to take away electricity and turn us all into flowers in our hair vegans. No, it's science, and it's facts and evidence.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 10 Sep, 2019 06:21 pm
@MontereyJack,
Since the science is based on biased and skewed data, I'm not interested in what the science says.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 10 Sep, 2019 06:22 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
How do you know that? What benchmark are you using to make that statement?

Scientific journals have been caught blocking publication of data that is inconvenient to the leftist narrative. So I know that the scientists aren't using accurate data.

If there is another source of data other than the scientific community, I'm not aware of it.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 Sep, 2019 09:13 pm
@oralloy,
can you identify some of these articles and the Journals in which they were denied publication?

Usually there would be a great track left for some authors to complin or publish it through the press .

Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 Sep, 2019 11:49 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
The scientists who are complaining that their papers are being suppressed are not lying.

They are lying. It's called a peer review process. If you can't pass it, you don't get published in a peer reviewed journal... You can get published on the interwebs though.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Wed 11 Sep, 2019 12:04 am
@Olivier5,
There are havlines of investigations independent of each other. It's not as if there were one single line of research. orallo and the deniers look at ONE line of investigation, make some really questionable inferences bout ow it is being conducted, really really questionable, and then try to ssy that throws out all the data from all the other independent lines of research. They are flat wrong.
\
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Wed 11 Sep, 2019 12:20 am
@oralloy,
Warming shows up in unlikelyplaces. Got some tonight that doesn't come from human research at all, but from fish and cooks. No science, just cold hard facts. Or rather succulent warm filets.
Local TV program tongith featured a couple Boston restaurant owners. One was the owener of a loal chain of restaurants that are known for their fresh local fish, with decades of experience. They keep a close eye on what's avsilable and how it might change, and they've done it for decades. Fish habitats vary by temperature. There are cold water fish and warm ater fish, to boil it down . The mos=dels pedict warmer waters from AGW and the restaurant people have been looking st the. Yhere have been fishermen in New England waters since before Columbus, they know what's here. He said the cold water fish thy used to get have moved north up into Canada, ut they are now getting fish they've never seen before, sidh from what used to be warmer southern waters who are now able to live in New England. Because AGW is warming our waters.
Even the cooks and the fish, who don't read the science anddon't look for their info at data orally maintains is biased, disagree with him. It's the fishes' lives, and the new dishes that the chefs have to figure out that give the lie to oralloy's contentions.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  3  
Reply Wed 11 Sep, 2019 03:14 am
@MontereyJack,
Oralloy is just a puppet, a fool convinced by much more sinister people to disbelieve the science. It's not like he's got a clue. He's full of someone else's ****.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Sep, 2019 04:20 am
@Olivier5,
You cannot provide any examples of me parroting anyone else.

The only thing that you have to offer to support your global warming ideology is mischaracterization and personal attack.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Sep, 2019 04:22 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
can you identify some of these articles and the Journals in which they were denied publication?
Usually there would be a great track left for some authors to complin or publish it through the press.



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
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Sep, 2019 04:23 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
They are lying.

Wrong again. The scientists are telling the truth about their papers being suppressed.


Olivier5 wrote:
It's called a peer review process. If you can't pass it, you don't get published in a peer reviewed journal...

When that peer review process allows through shoddy research that complies with the leftist narrative, and blocks quality research that contradicts the leftist narrative, the result is bad science that cannot be trusted.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Sep, 2019 04:24 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
make some really questionable inferences bout ow it is being conducted, really really questionable,

There is nothing at all questionable about taking note of the fact that data is biased, skewed, and unreliable.


MontereyJack wrote:
then try to ssy that throws out all the data from all the other independent lines of research. They are flat wrong.

The fact that science journals are biasing and skewing data means that their data is unreliable.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Wed 11 Sep, 2019 06:10 am
@oralloy,
Naah, they're just liars whinning about being exposed as liars. As you are.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/30/2020 at 01:08:47