124
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
MontereyJack
 
  4  
Reply Wed 11 Sep, 2019 10:16 am
@farmerman,
Got that oralloy? Your alleged bogosity has been debunked.
Olivier5
 
  3  
Reply Wed 11 Sep, 2019 10:42 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
don't expect the US to join

The US usually does the right thing, when they have exhausted all alternatives.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Sep, 2019 02:20 pm
@Olivier5,
The right thing is to ignore global warming hysteria.

We're going to go ahead and ignore global warming hysteria right now instead of waiting.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Sep, 2019 02:21 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Your cascades snomelt article has been a reported data based on stat anlysis just to 2007. The AGU (not a shoddy group , look em up) published Snow Water Equivalent data from 1930 till 2018 for the severl nopack data points in the CAscades and the SWE has been reported to have decreased by a measurable amount in that 70 year period.

That doesn't justify suppressing these scientists' data.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Sep, 2019 02:22 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Most of those conclusions about the Sierras have been developed on data that had quit being used in 2007, whyzat?? Id say that the SWE methods were a bit robuster.

Youve tried to make a point based on one basic data point that are
1out of date
2may not even be valid

I did make a point, and it is quite valid. It is wrong for scientific journals to suppress data that is inconvenient to the leftist narrative.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Sep, 2019 02:23 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Got that oralloy? Your alleged bogosity has been debunked.

Nothing has been debunked. Biased data is unreliable data.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Wed 11 Sep, 2019 03:17 pm
@oralloy,
Journals only surpress articles for a few reasons.
1They dont add anything to understandings of the science

2They are flat wrong or out of date (your case)

3They are a politically biased or religiously based argument on behalf of that belief


Anything that puts up a really good argument and data and evidence for a POV that counters science of the day, is usually welcomed for a mere reason that it SELLS. (Journals are, really, a business model, not Vespers



Quote:

I did make a point, and it is quite valid
. Then why does recent data(12 years post your reference??) show that the Sierras ARE cumulatively losing snowpack AND ,all the .
glaciers
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Sep, 2019 03:22 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
2They are flat wrong or out of date (your case)

There was nothing wrong with the science. The article was suppressed because it counters the leftist narrative.


farmerman wrote:
Then why does recent data(12 years post your reference??) show that the Sierras ARE cumulatively losing snowpack AND ,all the .glaciers

Beats me. My point is that the journals are wrong to suppress entries that counter the leftist narrative.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Sep, 2019 02:44 pm
@oralloy,
the science may have been correct for 1945 but it was offered up in 2007 and the dta was already conflicted out by 2008. SCience IS NOT static.
Ive had two early papers on monazite rejected because of timeliness. Usually we get included on the more recent papers submitted. If you red any journals you can see papers of lestt than 20 pages with 30 authors.
We used to say that we got credit for all words with more than 3 syllables.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Fri 13 Sep, 2019 12:30 am
@oralloy,
You ignore global warming at your own peril.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 13 Sep, 2019 05:10 am
@Olivier5,
I'm not interested in hysteria. Let me know if you ever get any real (meaning unbiased) science.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 13 Sep, 2019 05:12 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
the science may have been correct for 1945 but it was offered up in 2007 and the dta was already conflicted out by 2008.

I'm not aware of any complaints over the quality of their science. The complaints were that their findings were inconvenient to the leftist narrative.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Fri 13 Sep, 2019 05:15 am
@oralloy,
Let me know when you get the neurons necessary to understand the science and the balls needed to accept its message.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 13 Sep, 2019 05:44 am
@Olivier5,
I was born with both.

I was also born with the neurons necessary to reject your unscientific hysteria.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Fri 13 Sep, 2019 05:55 am
@oralloy,
You're a coward and an idiot, like all bona fide GW deniers are.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 13 Sep, 2019 05:56 am
@Olivier5,
The fact that you can only support your position with name-calling and personal attacks shows just how bankrupt your position really is.
Olivier5
 
  3  
Reply Fri 13 Sep, 2019 06:36 am
@oralloy,
Your whole line of argument is to call GW a hystetia so you're name-calling too. Calling scientists liars is name calling. Etc. etc. Is name calling A-okay when it's done by rightwing cretins?
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 13 Sep, 2019 07:15 am
@Olivier5,
Referring to something as hysteria is hardly name calling. Be serious.

And you were the one who called scientists liars. I never said that.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 13 Sep, 2019 07:23 am
@oralloy,
Quote:

I'm not aware of any complaints over the quality of their science.
The implicit point is that once data are outdated for any kind of considerations for publication, it can be followed up to see whether THAT had any part of its being rejected. Are you even lightly familiar with the publication process?. We dont give out any self esteem awards for "mere participation". Not being selected is often just honest criticism of work that is
1wrong
2outdated
3politically motivated

(Pick one or more)
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 13 Sep, 2019 07:26 am
@farmerman,
The trouble is, in this case it was the rejection of the work that was both wrong and politically motivated.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 09/17/2019 at 06:47:19