Science Deniers are Everywhere

@farmerman,

It's not an either or proposition

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

3 temperture thresholds of 1500-1800 degrees achieved by the fires F were certainly enough to weaken steel beams beyond their structural integrity. This easily initiated the gravity collpse.

As Thomas Eager of MIT has stated, "However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. [1,382F to 1,472F]

Let's run with those numbers, quoted above.

The Cardigton fire test performed, described below, illustrates that farmerman's notion that " fires ... were certainly enough to weaken steel beams beyond their structural integrity" is fatuous.

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."
Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Dear Jesus.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Defamation of hard working, honest scientists FOR THA SAKE OF MONEY is not just a matter of opinion.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

You know you don't come across as more convincing because you cap 1/3rd of the words in your comments.

Your narrow minded view on this subject is that if anyone doesn't share your degree of certainty, they are guilty of "Defamation of hard working, honest scientists FOR THA (sic)SAKE OF MONEY" and all sorts of stupidity and perfidy.

FM's your buddy now because he has seen the light, but there was a time when he didn't agree with the orthodoxy. Was he a vile denier back then?

2 Replies

I refrained from casting Finnsy as one who was unable to discuss without insult, even though we disagreed on the "History thing".
I didnt need to wiggle the bait at you at all, you rose like a good ole small mouth at a good froggy plug.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

You consider "It's not an either or proposition" an insult?

Better not go out in the sun with that thin skin.

Or are you acting as Defender of Olivier?

0 Replies

@roger,

Quote:

Dear Jesus.

Yes, my son?

Just keep it short, as there's many here who need saving.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

FM's your buddy now because he has seen the light, but there was a time when he didn't agree with the orthodoxy.

Is this true, Finn?

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You know you don't come across as more convincing because you cap 1/3rd of the words in your comments.

You take issue with typos now?

Quote:

Your narrow minded view on this subject is that if anyone doesn't share your degree of certainty, they are guilty of "Defamation of hard working, honest scientists

No, my view is that anyone who's guilty of defaming wholesale groups of hard working, honest people is an asshole. It is all very simple.

I am surprised that you cannot figure it out. Isn't there a law against libel in your country? Didn't your mother tell you it was not okay to badmouth good people?

If you have valid, empirical points to make, make them. But ad hominem attacks against scientists are for loosers.

Quote:

FM's your buddy now because he has seen the light, but there was a time when he didn't agree with the orthodoxy. Was he a vile denier back then?

A disagreement is fine. I myself find it difficult to accept the Big Bang theory. But you don't hear me scream that all astrophysicians are a bunch of liars.

The problem comes when you defame whole groups of scientists because you disagree with what they say. Stay away from that and you should be ok.

2 Replies

@camlok,

camlok wrote:

Quote:
Mental health issues are everywhere too. And there seems to be a non-trivial overlap between them.

I do hope that you are seeking help, rosborne.

You seem a tad defensive. When someone mentions mental health issues, do you always assume they are talking about you? Because that's kind of like putting nail in your own coffin.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

You take issue with typos now?

A typo is a mistake. You mean to tell us your cap lock has been getting stuck against your will?

Quote:

anyone who's guilty of defaming wholesale groups of hard working, honest people is an asshole

And to the extent that anyone actually is, and knowingly, I would agree, but I also believe that anyone who expands that category to include people with whom he simply disagrees is an asshole as well.

If there is anyone out there saying all Climate Scientists are dishonest frauds, it would be an odd argument because it would include those who don't agree with the orthodoxy.

What do you think of people who declare that all scientists who don't ascribe to the orthodoxy are paid shills of the oil industry?

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

Coming from a science denier, which is one and the same as a known liar.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

And to the extent that anyone actually is, and knowingly, I would agree, but I also believe that anyone who expands that category to include people with whom he simply disagrees is an asshole as well.

And yet you sit silent while that very thing goes on all around you, while you engaging in the same thing. Don't you grasp just how much of a hypocrite that makes you, Finn?

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

No, my view is that anyone who's guilty of defaming wholesale groups of hard working, honest people is an asshole. It is all very simple.

It is simple, Olivier. You admit to being an asshole.

0 Replies

@roger,

You contributions to the science are quite remarkable, Roger.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You mean to tell us your cap lock has been getting stuck against your will?

I do.

Quote:

And to the extent that anyone actually is, and knowingly, I would agree, but I also believe that anyone who expands that category to include people with whom he simply disagrees is an asshole as well.

That's exactly my point. Disagreement is fine; spreading libel and lies and insults about whom you disagree with is NOT fine. If you accuse someone of something, you must be able to prove it.

Quote:

If there is anyone out there saying all Climate Scientists are dishonest frauds, it would be an odd argument because it would include those who don't agree with the orthodoxy.

Okay so lets edit "all" to "nearly all".

Quote:

What do you think of people who declare that all scientists who don't ascribe to the orthodoxy are paid shills of the oil industry?

I never said that. I spoke of a massive, paid-for disinformation campaign by rightwing think tanks, aimed at the general US public (especially Republican-leaning); and I did show solid evidence for it.

4 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

[libel and lies and insults about whom you disagree with is NOT fine.

Look it happened again!

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Finn: You mean to tell us your cap lock has been getting stuck against your will?

Olivier: I do.

Another Olivier bald faced lie.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Disagreement is fine; spreading libel and lies and insults about whom you disagree with is NOT fine. If you accuse someone of something, you must be able to prove it.

You have zero shame, Olivier. You ARE a pathological liar. And hypocrite.

Proof comes in your every post. Well, okay let's say "nearly all".

0 Replies

Science Deniers are Everywhere

Quick Links

My Account

able2know