AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Read the OP. By the way, is English your native language?

I have him on Ignore, but from what I've seen quoted, I think Southern Cracker is his native tongue.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Your first post in this thread is the only post which was on topic.

This one?

Quote:

"Science" is the new religion. It's like sectarian and denominational branches of the church. Everybody has god on their side, they all quote selectively from scriptural passages which "prove" that their narrow interpretation is absolutely correct, and nobody really knows what they're talking about. For about 90% of the population, their approach to science is faith-based.

As popularly used, the term "science," is about as well defined as "god" and is just as omnipotent, so long as it is "properly" understood to support the position I want to take. The modern approach to using and "understanding" science does not involve critical thinking. It involves adherence to dogma and is a tool for sophism.

If so, that's the only position I've been trying to explore here.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Read the OP

OK, let's read it together, eh?

Quote:

I've been listening to a program on the radio about an assault on science. (Assault is my term, not what was said in the program.) I happen to agree that there is an anti-science attitude in society. I am interested to know what people here think of the idea.

"I've been listening to a program on the radio about an assault on science. (Assault is my term, not what was said in the program.) "

OK, that's interesting. Now what?

"I happen to agree that there is an anti-science attitude in society."

OK, you agree. Now what?

"I am interested to know...

OK, you have an interest. That interest is "to know." Know what?

"...what people here think..." OK, you're soliciting thoughts, eh? About what?

"...of the idea."

What idea?

1. The idea of you re-nominating the program to include the word "assault?"
2. The idea that there is, or is not, an "anti-science attitude?"

What "thoughts?"

1. Whether other people also agree (with you) that there is an anti-science attitude?
2. Thoughts which elaborate on the proposition that there is (or is not) an "anti-science attitude?"

What the **** are you asking for? You want knowledge of others thoughts, you say.

But that doesn't really say anything. Why don't you elaborate? I, and others, can read words. I can't speak for others, but, personally, I can't read minds.

2 Replies

@layman,

This is what I posted they left out..

Quote:

The last decades of the past millennium are characterized again by warm temperatures that seem to be unprecedented in the context of the last ∼1600 years.

They didn't include it. Your post doesn't give the quote. The authors of your paper attempt to undermine it. You failed to include their highlight of the word may in your quote of their paper. Why did the introduce the word "may" when the authors stated the the current warming period is unprecedented? They attempt to equivocate on what the authors said by undermining it with terms that show there is some statistical variation in the conclusion.

I find it funny how they didn't include may or might when point out that there is nothing unusual about today's warming. And yet the paper they use to reach that doesn't say that at all. It is less clear about warming than Kelleher's paper.

Let me repeat what the Kelleher paper said..

Quote:

The last decades of the past millennium are characterized again by warm temperatures that seem to be unprecedented in the context of the last ∼1600 years.

Quote:

1/4 of one degree aint much difference.

That is funny, layman. Notice that the MWP that you are claiming occurred in the southern hemisphere is actually less than 1/4 degree increase from the previous 600 years. It's actually less than .2 degrees. Now what was that you were saying about 1/4 degree isn't much difference? We clearly see the LIA in the numbers. Which is only about a .25 degree drop from the 600 year average. Or are you going to argue that we can't see that because it ain't much difference?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman,

I think you have given us all some good examples of the attack on science. You make claims such as the MWP was warmer than today then you provide us with no evidence in support of it all the time attacking the scientists that have actually done the work.

You claimed 1/4 degree isn't much difference and yet what you presented as science showing there was a MWP in the southern hemisphere isn't even 1/4 degree increase. This is after you claimed the MWP was warmer than today but the science you come up with shows it wasn't.

You have also presented us with self published papers that spend a lot of time referencing peer reviewed papers but then misrepresenting what is actually in those papers. Another fine example of the attack on science.

In short, you are a prime example of the attack on science. You use shoddy support work. You don't care if it is relevant or accurate. You call people names. You make claims that are not supported. You argue opposites are both correct. You simply look up internet postings without ever referencing the science it is talking about to see if it is correct or not. Whether your attack on science is willful or just ignorant I don't know but you certainly don't have much basis in fact.

0 Replies

@parados,

As I said, Parry, I'm not going to try to deal with your incoherency. You make no sense, and can't read well.

Quote:

Notice that the MWP that you are claiming occurred in the southern hemisphere

I'm not claiming anything. The scientific paper is, and the reviewer simply notes it. This is a verbatim quote from the paper itself:

Quote:

Relatively warm temperatures during the first centuries of the past millennium and subsequent cold conditions from the 15th to the 18th century suggest that the MWP and the LIA are not confined to high northern latitudes and also have a tropical signature.

Do you really think the abstract prevails over the specific contents of the paper itself? Even the abstract itself only says that the current temperatures "seem to be" (not ARE) higher. I'm through.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

MWP and the LIA are not confined to high northern latitudes and also have a tropical signature.

You might want to read that again. It says nothing about the southern hemisphere.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

You might want to read that again. It says nothing about the southern hemisphere

Heh, rave on, Parry. If they're not in the northern hemisphere where are they? The extra-terrestrial hemisphere, that it?

1 Reply

@layman,

Northern high latitudes are above the Tropic of Cancer. Northern Tropic latitudes are from the Equator to the Tropic of Cancer.

1 Reply

@parados,

You didn't even begin to read the paper, did you? And you want to pretend someone ELSE misreads scientific papers?

Quote:

Here we present a highly resolved NH4+ record from a high-altitude ice core from Nevado Illimani, Bolivia, and discuss it as a novel proxy for tropical South American temperatures over the last ∼1600 years.

Hmmm, I wonder what hemisphere south America is in, eh? Let me study on it for a good long spell. That's a tough one.

1 Reply

@layman,

South America is in both hemispheres. Now you don't have to study up on it.

1 Reply

@layman,

Play your idiot game with someone else. You understood it well enough to respond, in some detail, at the beginning of the thread. Now you just want to get in a pissing contest. Good luck with that.

2 Replies

@FBM,

Yeah, that wouldn't be unreasonable. It's a piss poor attempt at a mid-20th century, rural black patois. The evidence of people's responses is that they just find it annoying and obfuscatory. He's as phony as a three dollar bill.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

South America is in both hemispheres. Now you don't have to study up on it

Yeah, and where is Nevado Illimani, Bolivia?

Hint, look at the big-ass, full color map in the paper and it will give you the precise latitude.That should be a little easier for you than trying to read, eh?

Quote:

two parallel ice cores were retrieved from Nevado Illimani (16°37′S, 67°46′W, 6300 m)

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

I think Southern Cracker is his native tongue.

Quote:

Yeah... It's a piss poor attempt at a mid-20th century, rural black patois.

Just so ya know: A black aint no cracker.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

You understood it well enough to respond, in some detail, at the beginning of the thread

Then what are you complaining about? As I just said, as I have repeatedly said throughout the course of this thread, and, in particular, as I keep trying to tell Parry:

Quote:

that's the only position I've been trying to explore here.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Once again, as I have already said several times. I only bring up the topic of climate change to question the politically motivated anti-science people who, among other things, repeatedly (yet falsely) claim that the science is "settled" and virtually universally accepted. That's about as anti-scientific as you can get.

I only bring up cases like Michael Mann because he and his methods do indeed give science a bad name. This at least partially explains the "anti-scientific attitude in society."

But it is not really science that is being questioned, per se. It is scientists, who are no longer presumed to be trustworthy. It is the misuse and abuse of so-called "science" that leads many to question what is presented to them as "proven science."

0 Replies

Take the interminable "debate" that takes place between so-called "alarmists" and so-called "denialists" in the arena of climate change. This is widely known and serves as a convenient illustration for the point I am trying to make. Each faction has some prominent scientists who support the position they want to take (for non-scientific reasons).

Each side will then routinely mock and challenge the other's preferred experts as being corrupt frauds who are totally incompetent to even comment on the topic. The extreme slander involved pertaining to distinguished scientists on each side just goes to show how many people have nothing but contempt for any science which they want to reject, for non-scientific reasons.

This ideological warfare (masquerading as a batlle over "true science") does not serve to enhance the public's trust of scientists, or, indirectly, of science itself.

0 Replies

@layman,

I didn't call you a cracker, Einstein, leaving aside that neither i nor anyone else has any reason to assume that you are "black." I'm not going to waste any more time on you. You've trashed the thread, and all you're doing now is trolling.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Still not a word of substance to offer, eh?

If there's something you want to talk about, and think is "on point," why don't you just haul off and say it?

0 Replies

AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know