Pseudoscience and conspiracy theory are not victimless crimes against science

June 4, 2015 by Eduardo Nicolas Schulz, The Conversation
Pseudoscience: we should know better by now.

News of anti-vaxxer movements, demands to teach creationism in schools as science, and dubious claims for the health-giving properties of strange diets is enough to make you wonder if some people have forgotten or forsaken the scientific method entirely.

Astronomer Carl Sagan once said:

In every country, we should be teaching our children the scientific method and the reasons for a Bill of Rights. With it comes a certain decency, humility and community spirit. In the demon-haunted world that we inhabit by virtue of being human, this may be all that stands between us and the enveloping darkness.

Despite the progress of education and living standards, the world must seem like a scary place for many people – full of chemicals in the sky, aliens trying to abduct us, and government or corporate conspiracies. As Stephen Hawking drily remarked: "If governments are involved in a cover-up, they are doing a much better job of it than they seem to do at anything else."

What's the harm in 'alternative' science?

What's the harm in applying alternative medicine to treat cancer? Why should others care if I don't vaccinate my children? Such decisions are all too often based on a poor understanding of how science works – and usually guided by someone's commercial interest.

For example, US blogger Vani Hari, known as the Food Babe, claims to research and reveal problems with food (while receiving sponsorship from "natural" food companies). Among her profound research conclusions were that, when studying the effects of microwaves:

Microwaved water produced a similar physical structure to when the words "Satan" and "Hitler" were repeatedly exposed to the water.

1940s electro-metabograph, claiming to cure ailments with radio waves. No scientific basis of course - but doesn’t it look good? Credit: akuchling, CC BY

The truth is that in science there are no authorities. There are experts at most, and even their opinions can be challenged by anyone – so long as there's evidence to back up the argument. When some people are taken as "authorities" and their claims, however wacky, believed, then the subsequent decisions that millions of people may take could harm them or even bring a premature end to their lives.

If that sounds outlandish, consider two "wellness" bloggers from Australia. Belle Gibson punted her wholefood recipes and alternative therapies (available as a book and smartphone app) as a "natural" weapon in her fight against cancer – a cancer she later admitted she'd entirely fabricated. Or Jessica Ainscough, the Wellness Warrior, whose very real sarcoma was not hindered by the "natural healing" pseudoscience she advocated on her blog. Ainscough died in February 2015.

Cancer is terrifying for those facing it and their families. What some of these "wellness" bloggers do whether misguided or for the sake of personal profit is not only an insult to these people and those that have lost loved ones to the disease, but also an irresponsible act.

Similarly, the misinformation and ignorance of science of the anti-vaxxer movement not only endangers their own children but also affects the lives of the rest of the population.

The spread of pseudoscience can kill, and that's exactly why we should be doing more to spread understanding of the , to equip others to apply scepticism in the face of extraordinary claims.

The demon-haunted world

But instead of teaching children how to critically analyse the world around them for themselves through a lens of healthy scepticism, the educational system is based on arguments from authority, encouraging them to accept what they're told. Over time, this may develop into a deep ignorance of a scientific approach resulting in a huge difference in outlook and approach to the world between the scientifically trained and everyone else. Into that gap steps mistrust, charlatans and conspiracy theories.

Scientific enquiry, in a nutshell. Credit: Whatiguana, CC BY-SA

The world we have is bound up with science and technology, yet very few of us understand that . This is a recipe for disaster, and in the 20 years since Sagan's book: The Demon-haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark was published, the situation has not improved.

It can be difficult for someone without a university education – or even without a scientific degree – to understand and interpret scientific results. Even those working in one scientific field can struggle to understand developments in others, due to the extent of specialisation required for further progress. Mastering this specialisation requires time, of which we humans have only a limited amount. Gone are the days of all-purpose geniuses such as da Vinci and Leibniz, whose expertise stretched from maths, mechanics and invention, to philosophy, politics, anatomy and medicine.

Closing the gap

Lucky for us, knowing all is not a requirement for scientists, nor even for scientific thinking. In fact truly scientific thinking echoes Socrates' words, that the wisest of men is he who knows that he knows nothing. "There is no shame in not knowing," Neil deGrasse Tyson said. "The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behaviour fill the vacuum left by ignorance."

The only requirement for scientific thinking is to learn how to apply the scientific method to what we encounter in our daily lives. That is what scientists should be teaching others – is the only approach to the truth we have, error-correcting machinery connected to self-criticism that tests our ideas against the real world. And the proof of its veracity is all around you – from the scientific principles that underlie the screen you're reading this on, to the manufacturing processes and materials required to build it, and the electricity that powers it.

Science might not be perfect but it is the best tool mankind has developed to understand itself and the world around us. With a grasp of the scientific method the world is suddenly revealed not as a place to be feared, but to be understood. As Carl Sagan also said: "There are wonders enough out there without our inventing any."

Explore further: Compulsory science and maths is great but there's more to be done

Related Stories

The rise of the new celebrity scientists

March 18, 2015

Are you wondering how a biopic about a scientist, The Theory of Everything, garnered five Oscar nominations - or even got made in the first place? American University's School of Communication professor Declan Fahy explains ...

Inoculating against science denial

April 27, 2015

Science denial has real, societal consequences. Denial of the link between HIV and AIDS led to more than 330,000 premature deaths in South Africa. Denial of the link between smoking and cancer has caused millions of premature ...

Measuring the value of science

April 16, 2015

Reports about the worthy contributions of science to national economies pop up regularly all around the world – from the UK to the US and even the developing world.

Recommended for you

A statistical look at the probability of future major wars

February 22, 2018

Aaron Clauset, an assistant professor and computer scientist at the University of Colorado, has taken a calculating look at the likelihood of a major war breaking out in the near future. In an article published on the open ...

175 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

julianpenrod
1.5 / 5 (26) Jun 04, 2015
"Science" lies that it never presents itself as absolutely reliably and infallible, but that's exactly what they're doing here.
"Science" never prevented the sale of fen-phen, thalidomide or Vioxx.
"Science" said there was mass production of banned weapons was going on in Iraq.
"Science" said to wait to expose children to allergens to build up immunity.
"Science" said it was not true that peanut allergy rates were rising, then admitted they were.
Before 1850, the AMA said it would remove the license of any physician who washed their hands.
Inoculation was a folk remedy in Eastern Europe.
It's being admitted that as much as 90 percent of all "research" papers being published are not true.
No one ever proved there was a measles "outbreak" even by just printing some individuals' names.
"Scientists" won't admit any of this until damage is done and they can't hide it, which is a conspiracy.
gkam
4.1 / 5 (22) Jun 04, 2015
No, Julian, folk with troubled minds and no real contact with reality said that and did that.
AGreatWhopper
Jun 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MalleusConspiratori
3.2 / 5 (18) Jun 04, 2015
Penrod's an unemployed salesman for the greatest environmental terrorist organization on the planet, The Catholic Church.

Stopped reading this site pretty much, spending my discretionary time tracking down the trolls that are so common on sites like this. Catholics are the worst. I collected data on a major alpha male in the Catholic League and got him indicted for federal contractor fraud. I found out where a paedophile bishop was living, supported by the Church, and sent the info. to all his victims' families. I have dressed up as a little old lady and joined the Altar and Rosary society to get access to churches and have mixed interesting things with the contents of the ciborium. I've pissed in the holy water font. I hope to meet you one day. You want to see feminism that has an agenda? OK. Might want to hold onto your nuts.

Oh, Julian the Spririt overcomes me!!! Psalms 137:9. "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Sooo true.
AGreatWhopper
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 04, 2015
The arrogance of those terrorists is incredible. The Romans widely practiced infanticide but there is not one word about it in the entire Bible. Nothing. But abortion is evil? Meanwhile there are lots of statements about hypocrites that like to display their religion. Give up the scam, already. The Catholic Church has zero spirituality and cares nothing for its members except the way a farmer cares about his livestock. Breeding. They're all over that, but being a hired killer for the Empire? Well, that's debatable. They care so much about human life.

MC is right. They need to be publicly exposed. I was at a Kiwanis meeting for lunch the other day and a Catholic bishop was introduced. I got up, went to the front, poured the pitcher of iced tea over his head and told him to get the hell out. Everyone clapped. Livestock are timid. Only takes one bull to gore the farmer and the herd learns real fast! En garde, Penrod!
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 04, 2015
"the reasons for a Bill of Rights. "

The Bill of Rights for the US Constitutions were included to help prevent the state from violating human rights.
It hasn't worked as the US govt violates the Bill of Rights daily.
"Science might not be perfect but it is the best tool mankind has developed to understand itself and the world around us"

And does a poor job to help people understand themselves.
And making matters worse, the evangelical followers of scientism attack religions that help people when science fails them.

Which is why the very first amendment guarantees freedom of religion by prohibiting a state religion, like atheism or scientism, and prohibits the state from preventing the free exercise of religion, which the atheists are trying to do.
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (13) Jun 04, 2015


Which is why the very first amendment guarantees freedom of religion by prohibiting a state religion, like atheism or scientism, and prohibits the state from preventing the free exercise of religion, which the atheists are trying to do.


You left out Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and any other religion. The First Amendment is the statement of a secular government, free from religious interference.
luke_w_bradley
3.8 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2015
"If governments are involved in a cover-up, they are doing a much better job of it than they seem to do at anything else."

The problem with this "there are no conspiracies" line of reasoning, is that its both falsifiable and falsified to the extent that those who embrace it are off in a sort of lala land: While to them the government is incapable of a cover-up, the rest of the literate world is reading about Edward Snowden in the front page news, who leaked large scale, unreported (covered-up) surveillance program, which even congress has now responded to. They also read about validated historical cover ups, including unethical human testing of radioactive substances on mentally disabled, which was covered up from the subjects and public.
http://en.wikiped...d_States

Overcoming fear of valid science is going to take trust building and a different sort of argument to be effective, than "there are no conspiracies".
MalleusConspiratori
3.1 / 5 (10) Jun 04, 2015
Yes, Luke. The problem with the lottery is that someone actually wins. Idiots think, "That could be me". Same with those idiots. Conspiracies exist; this might be one. They have no concept of scale though and with fuzzy comparisons everything soon becomes the same to them.

Most are just...well this put it pretty well. http://www.runboa....t106154

Really says something about the site that these bottom feeders get run out of all but the most tin-hatted sites...but here they're welcome. No site operator tolerates that gladly. Something is bought and paid for here.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (10) Jun 04, 2015
No, Julian, folk with troubled minds and no real contact with reality said that and did that.
Ahaahaaaa takes one to know one.

YOURE the guy who thinks that H2 explosions can cause dirty molten Pu puddles to fission and throw imaginary reactor vessel parts 130km, without making the crater that a conventional nuke would make as it threw debris only 1/100th as far.

Because you read it on a conspiracy website written by an anti-radiation pill salesman.

And - lookie - Thermodynamics the professional patent holder (pills?) likes most anything you have to say because youre part of the AGW scooby team and rub his butt frequently with many 5/5s.

How charitable.
luke_w_bradley
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2015

Well, I don't know, but Internet content can be bought and paid for, that's one of the emerging challenges of the medium. How to get quality data on the net, when others think its in their interest to manipulate data?

As far as my point, I think the best thing for humanity is building public trust (and participation) in science, that involves building trust in the system, like an Operating System maker might build trust in their OS: You can't have a situation where the OS designer says "You can rely on our OS, its safe: There are no such thing as hackers and malware". Acknowledging the risks is part of trust building, that's why Hawking makes mistakes with those kinds of statements. Someone does win the lottery, you have to admit that to explain the odds.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2015
Gkams conspiratorial rantings in another thread:
We have it, too. The Koch Brothers want to spend $1,000,000,000.00 to rig the election for Big Filthy Money. How to fight that kind of Fascism?

How many more Wars for Oil do we need? How much more do you want to be in the pocket of the Bush/Saudi crooks? Why are we depending on religious kooks who hate us?

Sorry,but we have seen the consequences of rampant capitalism, and it ain't pretty
We also havent seen the ultimate consequences of VA drug overprescription. And it is even less pretty.
gkam
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 04, 2015
Luke, I think the answer is General Science for everybody. It is an imperative in today's world where basic knowledge of chemistry and physics are almost required to get through the day intelligently, without being taken advantage of.

But it must be practical science, such as that taught decades ago in the simple and cheap PSSC Physics, which had you do the stuff yourself. Science can be made interesting if it is explained correctly and put into the world of today, with the point of understanding fundamentals, not remembering or memorizing.

If put in ways the students understand already, and shown to have meaning in their own lives, they get it. Doing a simple experiment can teach more than all night of reading.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2015
Luke, I think the answer is General Science for everybody. It is an imperative in today's world where basic knowledge of chemistry and physics
...and lets see, you are under the impression that graphite and graphene are the same thing? Because you tested(?) graphite for NASA?

Maybe you need a refresher course?
such as that taught decades ago in the simple and cheap PSSC Physics
... and youre the guy who thinks H2 explosions can cause molten Pu puddles full of all sorts of crud like bolts and concrete to FISSION and throw projectiles 130km... all because he misread a poorly-translated article which was talking about DUST and not macroscopic PROJECTILES.

Maybe you should start at the beginning, like with reading comprehension.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2015
The First Amendment is the statement of a secular government, free from religious interference.

False.
The authors of the Constitution stated the document was written for a religious people.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams

Read more at http://www.brainy...xP7zJ.99
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2015
The First Amendment is the statement of a secular government, free from religious interference.

False.
The authors of the Constitution stated the document was written for a religious people.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams

Read more at http://www.brainy...xP7zJ.99
gkam
3 / 5 (12) Jun 04, 2015
Sorry, Ryggy, but if you want to follow John Adams, with that Holy Stick up his bottom go ahead.

He's dead.
gkam
2 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2015
KBK
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2015
Well, Princeton university did publish their study that the USA is an oligarchy, which is actually imperialist fascism, posing as democracy.

Princeton WILL begin teaching this in the fall of 2015 (in the given applicable course).

And they are right to do so.

The backlash for fascist oligarchy and motions toward totalitarianism, is a religiosity, and freedom seeking where it may take place.

A side effect of total penetration of the FDA by pharmaceutical companies-and things much uglier. Companies controlled by CIA adjuncts and connections to the original Nazi I.G. Farben.

These are the folks who created the MK ULTRA programs. The CIA was found to be actively pursing the degradation and control of the population, via these mechanisms.

These are not fantasies or imaginations at play, here. This is based in fact, and record.

People don't want the GMO, the vaccines, or the drugs, or ..etc..for very good reasons.

All you have to do is some good honest research...
gkam
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 04, 2015
"These are the folks who created the MK ULTRA programs. "
---------------------------

KBK, do you know who was treated at St Elizabeth's both before and after he became famous?
KBK
1 / 5 (1) Jun 04, 2015
John H. Junior?

As for St. Elizabeth's... Architectural style: "Italian Gothic Revival"

Kinda revealing......
gkam
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2015
Yup. I got three Sunday papers at the time, and one of them had his entire life history, which surprised the hell out of me. I thought it would all come out in the trial, but there wasn't one, remember? A judge just sent him back to where he was worked on before.

And remember the ties between the Bush and bin Laden clans? Decades of huge deals. What a coincidence!!
gkam
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2015
Who was CIA Director when they worked with the South American torturers? Who let them kill Ronnie Moffit and Orlando Letelier?

Our Director at the time was in league with the DINA, which tortured children in front of their parents so the parents would give them more names to work on.

He ran the assassins at the time they were working on ULTRA victims in Canada and at St Elizabeth's.
Multivac jr_
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 05, 2015
I've found that those who are most vociferously against "science" and who treat it like an ideology instead of a process generally don't know enough about science to be against it.

I suspect that when it comes to the Big Conspiracies (i.e. how the whole world is actually ruled by one or more secret societies) their continued popularity stems from a common, innate desire to be assured that SOMEONE is driving civilization, even if they're drunk (or insane).

For a lot of people, accepting the fact (as dictated by Chaos Theory) that no one could possibly "rule the world" seems to be a much scarier prospect than the idea that some shadowy group controls things from behind the scenes, even if the group happens to consist of self-serving sociopaths.

That's probably because in the latter case we'd at least have a *chance* to grab the steering wheel and swerve away from a likely disaster. But no steering wheel at all? That's far more terrifying than the Men in Black could ever be!
reset
1 / 5 (2) Jun 05, 2015
Attaching the word "conspiracy" to what is better defined as a method of operation creates a tool to affect said methods continued use. You guys commenting here have mentioned enough political and religious methods of operation to justify worldwide anarchy just so a few of us can squirm out from under the bootheels that pin all of us down....If there are humans and money involved, lies and deceipt are part of the equation 99% of the time. The more money there is to be had, the bigger the lies and more hidden the MO's are. When an MO is hidden, the people who employ the MO can discount anyone who challenges their motives by passing them off as a "conspiracy nut".....except you Penrod....you really are insane.

innate desire to be assured that SOMEONE is driving civilization, even if they're drunk (or insane).


Money drives civilization. Find out who has the most and do a direct comparison to their sphere of influence...then check for transparency in their MO's.
Multivac jr_
3 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2015
Ahaahaaaa takes one to know one.

YOURE the guy who thinks that H2 explosions can cause dirty molten Pu puddles to fission and throw imaginary reactor vessel parts 130km, without making the crater that a conventional nuke would make as it threw debris only 1/100th as far.

Because you read it on a conspiracy website written by an anti-radiation pill salesman.

And - lookie - Thermodynamics the professional patent holder (pills?) likes most anything you have to say because youre part of the AGW scooby team and rub his butt frequently with many 5/5s.

How charitable.


That *looks* like English. The sentence structure seems familiar and I can recognize all the individual words. But beyond that the post is pretty much incomprehensible.
reset
1 / 5 (1) Jun 05, 2015
Point being, no field is exempt from this...including the sciences.
docile
Jun 05, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Multivac jr_
3 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2015

Money drives civilization. Find out who has the most and do a direct comparison to their sphere of influence...then check for transparency in their MO's.


Money has no intent and so can't "drive" anything in the sense I was referring to.

And in my opinion, Chaos Theory dictates that no individual or group is capable of exerting sufficient control to dictate the course of human civilization on Earth.

"Civilization" is an abstract construct that refers to an extremely-complex system (which is why it's subject to the principles of Chaos Theory). As such, while there may be (and probably are) at least a few shadowy groups of co-conspirators *plotting* to rule the world (and making many big messes in the process), the math rigorously proves that it's impossible for any to succeed.

Maintaining control of anything demands predictable outcomes for any actions taken towards that end, and complex systems are inherently unpredictable (in proportion to their complexity).
reset
1 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2015
Money has no intent and so can't "drive" anything in the sense I was referring to.


Worded a bit better: Money is the driver which motivates most peoples (whom exist as part of civilization) actions (unless dealing with "loved ones" of course.)

"Civilization" is an abstract construct that refers to an extremely-complex system


A system built upon another construct, the monetary system. I agree it is impossible for any few or one group to completely control the masses. But you gotta admit that if you were going to try to, the monetary system is an ingenious method. Invent a "need" for everyone to strive for that can be doled out in increments and make all other needs and wants obtainable based on how much of the initial need you can amass. We can now predict that people need money to survive and will therefore seek a preferred means of obtaining it. Obtaining money is a goal every member of civilization has....who controls the money?

People who have the most.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2015
That's probably because in the latter case we'd at least have a *chance* to grab the steering wheel and swerve away from a likely disaster.


Or as Batiat pointed out in The Law, people can grab the power for themselves, for a while.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2015
How to get quality data on the net
@luke_w
this is where critical thinking comes in
it also helps to review the sources of information: a site that openly claims to try and manipulate the data for the sake of a religious tenet (creationists and jvk) is NOT a good source for science
whereas legitimate peer reviewed journals with impacts in the subject are a valid source for data on scientific subjects
Overcoming fear of valid science...trust building and a different sort of argument
i disagree
the problem is not with the argument, but the fanatical fundamentalist faith of the pseudoscience crowd
science is based upon hard fast rules that anyone can learn, and it requires empirical evidence and validated experimentation etc
that is real provable evidence (trustworthy)

the problem comes in when conspiracy etc simply ignores evidence for their belief
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2015
Money is the driver which motivates most peoples (whom exist as part of civilization) actions (unless dealing with "loved ones" of course.)
@reset
horsepucky

obviously your family has nothing worth sharing with further generations?
every family i've ever observed fight about everything, be it financially advantageous or simply of historical personal attachment to a single individual (family jewelry anyone?)

family/loved ones is the worst example you could give as some sort of altruistic existence beyond greed, conspiracy or hostility

Multivac jr_ has a valid point
That *looks* like English.
@Multivac jr_

Ignore Otto, his trolling above is an attempt to denigrate gkam and anyone who up-votes him for any reason, regardless of content

Thermodynamics is a poster who frequents the climate change/AGW threads and has an education that otto envies

otto also is a fervent follower of mills and his hydrino perpetual motion with occasional relevant posts
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2015
I've found that those who are most vociferously against "science" and who treat it like an ideology instead of a process generally don't know enough about science to be against it
@Multivac jr_
for the most part this is absolutely true

but there are also a growing number of people who, although have some critical thinking skills (see otto above) also don't have the ability to differentiate between legitimate science and pseudoscience

this is repeatedly demonstrated by posters who take claims from people they want to believe and ignore the bulk of the physics or scientists who refute the claim with evidence

some have good habits: links/proof to claims
this is helpful to following how their thought process works

however, it is not helpful when faced with technical details that require a more substantial education than wiki or simply reading because it is not/may not be specifically called out in a study
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2015
"crimes against science", really!!
When will phyorg stop soiling it's site with garbage from The Conversation?
Water_Prophet
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2015
It's a good question. Why does a government protect something that could very well be wrong?

There is no good reason to believe in the Judao-Christian religions anyway. No proof, only debates. No matter how good your logic, you can't prove anything with logic if reality is different.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2015
In the Bible God says that the most people will not be saved at the return of the Son of God. Most people will prefer corruptible instead incorruptible and will find no evidence of God's presence even before their eyes because they do not want to see them. They do not like the idea of someone watching them and evaluate belief and behavior. But their wishes have little to do with reality.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
Viko, show us to the scientific evidence proving god exists. We would be thrilled to see you do so. Until then maybe you should go try a religious site if all you want to talk about is god and the bible.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2015
scientific evidence proving god exists


Science can not 'prove' anything.

The fact the Bible exists, survived for centuries and is one of, if the the MOST popular book in the history of the world, suggests millions of people find evidence for God in their lives.

Evangelical atheists 'scientists' disregard this data out of hand due to bias.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2015
"Since the scientists brought it up, which is the greater threat to their enterprise: the Republicans who run Congress, or the most spectacular scientific fraud in a generation, which was published and then retracted by the journal Science?"
"Scientific misconduct does seem to be mercifully rare, but a lesson of the LaCour retraction is to show more humility amid the illusion of scientific omniscience and to be more skeptical of studies that carry heavy political freight. That goes for the profusion of foods that are purported to cause or prevent cancer, and macroeconomic literature that claim to document a stimulus "multiplier."

Meanwhile, Science magazine editors who rebuke politicians might have more authority if their own science wasn't so political. "
http://www.wsj.co...33544688
reset
3 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2015
Stump.... if you can find the word family anywhere in my post you can have all my money....I said "loved ones"(they are called that because they mean more than money ya see).... sorry you have such a shitty family and you had to witness them tear each other apart over money. Also my condolences, as an ex member of the armed forces, for having to go kill people and watch friends die over whatever the war you fought in was supposedly about... but at the end of the day also turned out to be money.

Why would you assume loved ones and family are synonymous? I know just as many people who hate their families as love them. Surely you can think of someone who means more to you than money....
Mike_Massen
3.1 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2015
viko_mx states
In the Bible God says that the most people will not be saved at the return of the Son of God
This confirms your claimed god is a very NASTY being, it creates many KNOWING all suffer & most be destroyed, this is the character & activity of a Devil !

viko_mx you have ignore simple logic, emotionally attached to the notion of a father figure & thus you are VERY dangerous & NOT to be trusted EVER why ? Because you & those like you value their connection with an imagined deity far more than caring for people expecting that most will be destroyed, this means you are likely to try & ingratiate yourself before a god by even murdering in its name, as has already been done !

viko_mx with Hypocrisy
Most people will prefer corruptible instead incorruptible and will find no evidence of God's presence even before their eyes because they do not want to see them
You have definitively shown yourself up, your UGLY belief in a deity/devil is very DANGEROUS !
Multivac jr_
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 06, 2015
Science can not 'prove' anything.

The fact the Bible exists, survived for centuries and is one of, if the the MOST popular book in the history of the world, suggests millions of people find evidence for God in their lives.

Evangelical atheists 'scientists' disregard this data out of hand due to bias.


Many books (or cohesive collections of writings on spiritual matters) have lasted far longer, so that fact doesn't seem particularly relevant to anything. And with the Bible, there's also the issue of the parts that were left out due to (human) editorial decisions (i.e. the Apocrypha). Was God not a good enough writer?

And I don't think you understand what the word "data" means.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2015
Stump.... if you can find the word family anywhere ...I said "loved ones"
@reset
keep reading: i said
family/loved ones is the worst example you could give
it is a point of disagreement in the argument only
sorry you have such a shitty family
apology accepted, thanks
they are simply representative of the "typical" average family
Also my condolences, as an ex member of the armed forces, for having to go kill people and watch friends die over whatever the war you fought in was supposedly about
a sincere thank you
Why would you assume loved ones and family are synonymous?
because regardless of how much you dislike them and their actions, they are still loved ones

love isn't something that is confined to people who do only good to you, but transcends that barrier and is applied to those you care about regardless of treatment
love knows no bounds

and i DO have someone BTW
i just wanted to point out the flaw in the argument for discussion
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2015
Many books (or cohesive collections of writings on spiritual matters) have lasted far longer,

How do they rank in sales?

And you obviously do not know what data means.

"the Bible far outsold any other book, with a whopping 3.9 billion copies sold over the last 50 years

Read more: http://www.busine...cITCbhjq
mytwocts
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2015
@ ryggesogn2
There is no god, there are only delusionists like yourself.
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 06, 2015
ryggesogn2 states
"the Bible far outsold any other book, with a whopping 3.9 billion copies sold over the last 50 years
Read more: http://www.busine...cITCbhjq
Sure. WHich just goes to show people are easily influenced by mere claim, this is obviously one reason people like you bark claims there is no global warming and ignore evidence.

Sadly there are so many unenlightened people who crave certainty & easily influenced as they seek emotional comfort with minimal complexity.

Sad ryggesogn2, you still don't understand who or what you are & why you waste so much time with so much diatribe political, religious and anti-science !

Learn Physics ryggesogn2 or at the least finish highschool maths...
Multivac jr_
3.8 / 5 (10) Jun 06, 2015
Many books (or cohesive collections of writings on spiritual matters) have lasted far longer,

How do they rank in sales?

And you obviously do not know what data means.

"the Bible far outsold any other book, with a whopping 3.9 billion copies sold over the last 50 years


Ah, so it's a popularity contest.

That makes a lot of sense, and by that I mean it explains the paucity of substantive arguments in lieu of representing "truth" as a kind of transcendental Top-40 chart of Greatest Hits; whichever religious text makes it to #1 on the charts must be the "true" one.

Of course, my father (i.e. my actual father, not a transcendental proxy-daddy who lives in the sky) would've respond to your argument with the classic parental cliche: "Well if everyone else jumped off a bridge... (etc.)"

mytwocts
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2015
@ penrod character
""Science" said there was mass production of banned weapons was going on in Iraq."
So you think Bush and Blair were scientists! Depressing.
Read up on your facts before hammering your nonsense against the door of science,
Luther wannabee.
mytwocts
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2015
Science can not 'prove' anything.

Not to those who refute logic.
But what has your death worship brought us over the past 2000 years?
Cured anybody with your millions of prayers per day ?
Nope.
Multivac jr_
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 06, 2015
And you obviously do not know what data means.


Also, you're being completely disingenuous with your so-called argument about the nature of "data." First you implicitly asserted that Bible sales figures count as data supporting the existence of its God, which is preposterous (if popularity=Divine Truth then the One True God is actually Coca-Cola).

Then you tried to shift the goalposts by implying that Bible sales figures are a form of data, which is true **but that's not what you were trying to claim**.

FWIW, your rhetorical methods are only capable of swaying the opinion of someone who is woefully-ignorant of how logic and rational discourse works.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2015
How do they rank in sales?

And you obviously do not know what data means.

"the Bible far outsold any other book, with a whopping 3.9 billion copies sold over the last 50 years
@Rygg-TROLL
wait a minute: since when is the popularity of a book justification of it's factual nature or justification that the data therein is somehow factual????

in that case, King and "Carrie" or "The Stand" are simply representations of reality that we are ignoring, correct?

how about: "Horton Hears a Who" or the bulk of Zeuss writings translated into various languages

the point is: you cannot ASSume that something is factual just because it has a widespread and effective marketing department
ALSO
it makes a difference to people when the choice between acceptance and belief is opposite death and dismemberment (the BULK of the religious history shows that non-believers are killed as heretics)

apples and dog turds, ryggy

See Multivac arguments above for more details
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2015
First you implicitly asserted that Bible sales figures count as data supporting the existence of its God,


I don't need to prove God exists to you. I only need to convince myself.

If millions of people over several centuries have been able to find God in a book written over several centuries, by many people, AND translated many times from original Greek and Hebrew to every world language,it is worth further investigation.
And if the words is this book can destroy world empires and inspire men to create the most liberty and property the world has ever known, it's worth further investigation.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2015
"Science is an amazing, wonderful undertaking: it teaches us about life, the world and the universe. But it has not revealed to us why the universe came into existence nor what preceded its birth in the Big Bang. Biological evolution has not brought us the slightest understanding of how the first living organisms emerged from inanimate matter on this planet and how the advanced eukaryotic cells—the highly structured building blocks of advanced life forms—ever emerged from simpler organisms. Neither does it explain one of the greatest mysteries of science: how did consciousness arise in living things? Where do symbolic thinking and self-awareness come from?"
"Science and religion are two sides of the same deep human impulse to understand the world, to know our place in it, and to marvel at the wonder of life and the infinite cosmos we are surrounded by. "
http://time.com/7...ove-god/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2015
"Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science."
https://www.psych...ic-proof

Cured anybody with your millions of prayers per day ?
Nope.

How do you know? Where is your data?
Using science, if ONE person were cured with even ONE prayer, you must acknowledge God.
Multivac jr_
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 06, 2015
First you implicitly asserted that Bible sales figures count as data supporting the existence of its God,


I don't need to prove God exists to you. I only need to convince myself.


So why are you commenting here, then?

If millions of people over several centuries have been able to find God in a book written over several centuries, by many people, AND translated many times from original Greek and Hebrew to every world language,it is worth further investigation.
And if the words is this book can destroy world empires and inspire men to create the most liberty and property the world has ever known, it's worth further investigation.


Uh, it HAS been investigated. They call such people "Bible Scholars." And no evidence for the veracity of what it contains has been found (even by devoutly-religious archaeologists who went looking).
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2015
Water_Prophet again being vague with
It's a good question. Why does a government protect something that could very well be wrong?
Why does Water_Prophet always skip details, he has no pattern of writing anything useful like someone who actually has "4 technical degrees" as Water_Prophet has claimed ?

Water_Prophet goes on with
No matter how good your logic, you can't prove anything with logic if reality is different
This betrays immense misunderstanding of the value of logic & its intrinsic relationship with language and culture, can Water_Prophet articulate the detail of what he is trying to say as it comes across bordering on the same misunderstandings of "Experimental Methodology" such that Water_Prophet is immensely deluded to claim his brass water bowl & candle is a "perfect predictor of climate" why - because "ice melts" therefore this is his "QED" but, he cannot describe just where specific & latent heat fit re the differential wrt oceans & air ?
Multivac jr_
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 06, 2015
"Science is an amazing, wonderful undertaking: it teaches us about life, the world and the universe. But it has not revealed to us why the universe came into existence nor what preceded its birth in the Big Bang. Biological evolution has not brought us the slightest understanding of how the first living organisms emerged from inanimate matter on this planet and how the advanced eukaryotic cells—the highly structured building blocks of advanced life forms—ever emerged from simpler organisms. Neither does it explain one of the greatest mysteries of science: how did consciousness arise in living things? Where do symbolic thinking and self-awareness come from?"
"Science and religion are two sides of the same deep human impulse to understand the world, to know our place in it, and to marvel at the wonder of life and the infinite cosmos we are surrounded by. "


So what? Nothing in that quote asserts that religion solves any mysteries, just that some people find it useful.
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 06, 2015
ryggesogn2 falls into an immense psychological hole with troubling aspect of confirmation bias with this immensely naive utterance
I don't need to prove God exists to you. I only need to convince myself
LOL. Yet ryggesogn2 claimed to be a uni graduated Physicist, so how does he reconcile experimental evidence re beliefs when he SHOULD know Science & especially Physics is intrinsically connected to Math Ee "Balance of Probability" ?

ryggesogn2 claims
If millions of people over several centuries have been able to find God in a book written over several centuries, by many people, AND translated many times from original Greek and Hebrew to every world language,it is worth further investigation
Testament to immense emotional hynpsis whilst exploiting feeble intellects & craving certainty !

ryggesogn2 claims
And if the words is this book can destroy world empires...
Betraying that ryggesogn2 urgently needs an education in operant/classical conditioning...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2015
I don't need to prove God exists to you. I only need to convince myself
@ryggTROLL
this is also called self-delusion... in fact, the very definition of it

http://dictionary...delusion

as your religion requires acceptance on faith (or the belief in something without proof
http://dictionary...aith?s=t )

then by definition and admission you are self-deluded
it is worth further investigation
see Multivac above for more information
Also:
science utilizes mythological tales in the investigations of a culture in order to attempt to ferret out factual data, but only as long as it can be corroborated by second party sources (like egyptian records, etc)

there is very little factual anything in your historical "comic"
from the flood (didn't happen) to the books (edited by the Canon, falsely attributed authors by them too) to the historical text (plants before the sun? WTF?)

SaulAlinsky
4 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2015
Why has god never miraculously cured an amputee?

(Hint: He doesn't exist.)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
But it has not revealed to us why the universe came into existence nor what preceded its birth in the Big Bang
this is called "god of the gaps" argument
see:
https://www.youtu...kg4hMRjs

Biological evolution has not brought us the slightest understanding of how the first living organisms emerged from inanimate matter on this planet and how the advanced eukaryotic cells—the highly structured building blocks of advanced life forms—ever emerged from simpler organisms
and again, see the above link about the "god of the gaps" argument, which is [paraphrased]:
if you want to claim something you dont know is god, then be aware that god will be an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance and will eventually disappear to knowledge

also: just because YOU personally don't understand something doesn't mean science doesn't understand it

see:
Lenski
Dr. Extavour et al
Dr. Whittaker et al

http://beacon-center.org/
jeffensley
1.2 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2015
But instead of teaching children how to critically analyse the world around them for themselves through a lens of healthy scepticism, the educational system is based on arguments from authority, encouraging them to accept what they're told.


Unfortunately I think that's what extremists expect of the public every time a study is released... accept it as truth. That is assuming that it fits a narrative of a preconceived notion. We're only human after all and we see what we want to see. A great example is yesterday's announcement from NOAA saying there has been no pause in temperature anomaly despite what the most recent and broader reaching IPCC report suggested. It was just the day before yesterday that IPCC was the authority on AGW but as soon as a new study comes along to suggest AGW is worse than what the IPCC reported, how many, with no understanding whatsoever of what exactly NOAA did to make the data "better", jumped off the IPCC ship? cont'd
Multivac jr_
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 06, 2015

Cured anybody with your millions of prayers per day ?
Nope.

How do you know? Where is your data?
Using science, if ONE person were cured with even ONE prayer, you must acknowledge God.


OK, we can work with that: First off, who is that ONE person who's been cured by prayer alone? And since you want this to be scientific, how would you control for all the other possible variables that may have caused or contributed to a cure (i.e. the Placebo effect, a conventional immune system response, changes in diet, etc.)?
jeffensley
1 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2015
We skeptics hear about the scientific "consensus" but how quickly is that consensus tossed out the window so that a more dire narrative can be adopted? Now the question is, what is it those who WANT AGW to be a dire threat want from the public and governing bodies? Are they looking for security in the knowledge that science, as fallible as it is, is the guiding force for policy? Do they want the illusion of security that policy guided by science CAN control our climate?

Somehow we must learn to be honest with ourselves... as I said we all have narratives. When I read scientific articles and a slew of people adopting it as truth, I immediately seek the holes in it. I operate from the assumption that we know very little and our unwillingness to admit that forces us to react to incomplete pictures which of course carries with it an inherent risk. At the same time, so does inaction. What's more dangerous? Taking drastic action with an incomplete picture of the whole or taking no action?
Multivac jr_
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2015
Oh, and when someone is skeptical of an exceptional claim such as "prayer heals people," the onus is not on the skeptic to provide what I guess would be called "negative" data (how the heck does one cite data that proves something *didn't* happen?).

It's up to the individual making the claim to provide supporting data for that claim. That's not even Logic 101, it's more like Remedial Logic 99.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2015
Unfortunately I think that's what extremists expect of the public every time a study is released... accept it as truth
@jeff
unfortunately this is true... but that is also the reason why scientific literacy MUST be promoted among the young and illiterate
a study is only as strong as the validated information (See GR/SR and its history)
We skeptics hear about the scientific "consensus" but how quickly is that consensus tossed out the window so that a more dire narrative can be adopted?
the "concensus" WRT AGW is not about its existence, but about the validated claims
the bulk of scientific studies support and validate the AGW claims and CO2 as a major GHG operating in conjunction with WV and other GHG's...
and the article you are referring to doesn't invalidate those claims

it is not about "wanting" something to be a dire threat, it is about acknowledging the science and following the evidence

Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
Somehow we must learn to be honest with ourselves
@jeff
how is that possible when there are people (yourself included) who refuse to accept the VALIDATED claims and studies?
this still boils down to scientific literacy and the power of religion, conspiracy ideation and political peer pressure over scientific evidence

See also:
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

I immediately seek the holes in it. I operate from the assumption that we know very little
that's fine
but you also cannot come up with credible refutation or evidence which supports your conclusions and thus rely upon self-authority or argument from ignorance as a starting point

how does that help?

repeating failed debunked rhetoric doesn't help either, like your argument
the scientific "consensus"
this has been shown to you and proves the bulk of WORLD scientists and experiments point towards AGW
Multivac jr_
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 06, 2015
We skeptics hear about the scientific "consensus" but how quickly is that consensus tossed out the window so that a more dire narrative can be adopted?

About as quickly as it takes to work its way through the peer-review process.

I get the impression you're conflating a hard science (i.e. climatology) with the heavily-politicized concept of "Anthropogenic Global Warming" as it's presented in the (non-technical) popular press.
jeffensley
1.2 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2015
We skeptics hear about the scientific "consensus" but how quickly is that consensus tossed out the window so that a more dire narrative can be adopted?

About as quickly as it takes to work its way through the peer-review process.

I get the impression you're conflating a hard science (i.e. climatology) with the heavily-politicized concept of "Anthropogenic Global Warming" as it's presented in the (non-technical) popular press.


Unfortunately, the popular press is is what most of the world has to work with. Just as unfortunate is that the power does not lie in the facts themselves but in how the press and governing bodies manipulate and present it to suit their needs/narratives. I probably wouldn't be nearly as critical in the climate change debate if it weren't for the sensationalism of the press and even sites like this.
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (10) Jun 06, 2015
jeffensley who claimed to be an "Environmental Scientist" (ES) from Virginia Tech oddly states
We skeptics hear about the scientific "consensus" but how quickly is that consensus tossed out the window so that a more dire narrative can be adopted?
As an ES please advise if you studied this in your course as part of Physics pre-requisites ?
https://en.wikipe...transfer
which leads to
http://en.wikiped..._forcing

Which is proven, experimentally confirmed & (so far) never refuted, it gives a rather high effect from CO2 of >1.5W/m^2 which FAR exceeds 11yr sunspot cycles PLUS fossil fuel heat from combustion etc

So what basis jeffensley can he possibly have, as a Scientist, to be a skeptic of AGW ?

Detail please ?

btw: If jeffensley has me on 'ignore' because I asked this question before ie he doesn't write like an ES graduate can someone keen on Provenance & truth of claims press him on it, his position is very odd indeed !
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (10) Jun 06, 2015
Multivac jr_ noticed in observation re jeffensley
I get the impression you're conflating a hard science (i.e. climatology) with the heavily-politicized concept of "Anthropogenic Global Warming" as it's presented in the (non-technical) popular press
Indeed !

This would be consistent with jeffensley being a member of the public new to the issue who is also not trained in any scientific pursuit but, jeffensley has claimed to be an "Environmental Scientist" (ES) from Virginia tech circa 1998 iirc !

I asked him a few times in last few months what Physics pre-requisites, because in my mind the physics of all heat transfer mechanisms would be essential to a complete ES degree, so I'm stunned he writes as if he doesn't know or sees it as unimportant & whats more doesnt seem to have the mindset to spend an hour or so checking it definitively as part of trained uni discipline.

ie As if he easily accepting propaganda & thus not consistent with ES training

Confused ?
jeffensley
1 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2015
How you ask? I have enough of an understanding of climatology and physics to know that to take a system as complex as the climate of a planet and boil it down to variables that we can quantify is nothing except intellectually dishonest over-simplification. I don't deny that the climate is changing, I don't even deny that we play a part in it... where I allow questions to be asked is where people like you cling with fervent faith. Understanding a relatively simple concept like radiative forcing does not mean we understand the extent of the effect given all the other variables involved. Basing models off of our own limited observations and treating them like the Gospel is where I have the problem. Treating a warming climate as something to fear is where I have a problem. When fear of change is the basis for reaction, unless we reached some fictional Eden-like balance, we'd always be terrified of dying via heat and thirst or dying from freezing to death and lack of food.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
...Just as unfortunate is that the power does not lie in the facts themselves but in how the press and governing bodies manipulate and present it to suit their needs/narratives. I probably wouldn't be nearly as critical in the climate change debate if it weren't for the sensationalism of the press and even sites like this
@jeff
1- this site is just a clearing house for science articles
2- the fault above lies NOT with the sensationalism of journalists trying to draw attention and make money, but with the scientific illiteracy so widespread in society, cultures and the overwhelming need to feel special, which is where religious and other pseudoscience comes in

you cannot make ANYONE who refuses to educate themselves believe in ANY facts, regardless of how much evidence is there

case in point
cantdrive, jvk, electric universe, religious folk, verkle, ren82, viko, and many, many more

despite education, they refuse to acknowledge FACTS over their faith
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
I have enough of an understanding of climatology and physics
@jeff
and again, this is argument of self authority
you have also not been able to give reputable evidence which has been validated through secondary sources not influenced by original source to refute the known science or valid claims of the studies i've linked

nor have you been able to link studies which refute the studies i've linked
so your argument boils down to "because i'm smarter than you and i say so"
(Dunning-Kruger)

if you had as many studies re-validating your claims as the BULK of the climate science studies, then i would consider your opinion more legitimate (but still nothing more than personal conjecture unless you could validate it with evidence)

i do the exact same thing with others (including a JPL physicist) so it is NOT special treatment

even though you have a history of fallacious claims

give me evidence and reputable links and i will consider your speculations more credible
jeffensley
1 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2015
I'm sorry if what seems to me a common-sense acknowledgement of our limitations comes off as conceit. I do find it ridiculous however that intelligent people refuse to admit that there are far more things that we do not understand than there are that we do. Take the recent discovery of vessels connecting the brain to the immune system. How many times has the human body been studies and dissected? How much data and observations do we have and somehow this important connection was still missed? Now compare the information we have regarding the human body vs. that of the climate. Is it all that ridiculous to have some doubts about the accuracy of our models and theories regarding a system we've really only been getting decent data on for the last half-decade? For example, just because we have theories to explain the size and formation of our universe doesn't mean they are even remotely correct. It seems some believe a theory is fact until proven otherwise.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2015
[

case in point
cantdrive, jvk, electric universe, religious folk, verkle, ren82, viko, and many, many more

despite education, they refuse to acknowledge FACTS over their faith


@Captain Stumpy

Viko is proving your point at: http://phys.org/n...ary.html
jeffensley
1 / 5 (1) Jun 06, 2015
Btw, "half-decade" should read "half-century".
Multivac jr_
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 06, 2015
For example, just because we have theories to explain the size and formation of our universe doesn't mean they are even remotely correct. It seems some believe a theory is fact until proven otherwise.


In science, the word "Theory" has a very specific meaning. The fact that you're conflating it with "Hypothesis" is telling.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2015
First off, who is that ONE person who's been cured by prayer alone? And since you want this to be scientific, how would you control for all the other possible variables that may have caused or contributed to a cure

Good question.

But I an not interested in 'proving' the efficacy of prayer. I have no need to.

And there is data that shows that patients who are treated in a positive, hopeful and even prayerful environment respond better to treatments.
Multivac jr_
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 06, 2015

But I an not interested in 'proving' the efficacy of prayer. I have no need to.


Then shut up and go away.

And yes, that reply was rude. But so is wasting people's time with your narrow-minded hit-and-run proselytizing. "I have no need to [prove the efficacy of prayer]" is a glaring example of running away after hitting us with all that nonsense above.

And there is data that shows that patients who are treated in a positive, hopeful and even prayerful environment respond better to treatments.


Great, but that's hardly the same thing as (or proof of) an intercession of the Creator of the Universe on behalf of someone suffering a grave illness just because you mumbled to yourself for a while.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2015
Then shut up and go away.


Why? You made the hypothesis with no way to conduct the experiment to test it.

mumbled to yourself for a while.


I could mumble 'piss off' and that would be negative.

Or, I could speak clearly, earnestly, and hopefully asking God or nature or ....to heal some one. It might even be useful to speak such words of encouragement directly to raise the mood and spirit of the person who is ill.
How does science explain how millions of people have changed their lives for the better by thinking and acting in a positive way and most importantly having a positive, hopeful, faithful attitude?
Multivac jr_
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 07, 2015
[
How does science explain how millions of people have changed their lives for the better by thinking and acting in a positive way and most importantly having a positive, hopeful, faithful attitude?


Questions like that reveal your fundamental lack of understanding about what science is and how it works.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2015
How does science explain ...by thinking and acting in a positive way
@rygg
it is called self delusion and a few other terms, including self hypnosis
the reverse is also true

you are still not able to answer the question NOR have you given proof of your claim

this concept (self delusion, self hypnosis, etc) is also prevalent in religious and political fundamentalists, and painfully obvious in your own posts

you figure that enough repetition of a lie means it is true - you've demonstrated this over and over with your constant lies, misinformation and repeated known fallacies regardless of the empirical evidence proving you wrong

repetition doesn't make it real or true in reality
only in YOUR head
and for demonstration or proof of this point just re-read the bulk of your posts

works

@multivac
I know that the above is a "soft" science (psych), but it is still valid
especially re: self delusion/hypnosis
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2015
Questions like that reveal your fundamental lack of understanding about what science is and how it works.


No, it does not.

It points out the limits of science to those who believe that only science can be used to explain everything.
Those that reject the existence of anything that science hasn't validated for them.

Science is a tool.
Multivac jr_
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 07, 2015
Questions like that reveal your fundamental lack of understanding about what science is and how it works.


No, it does not.

It points out the limits of science to those who believe that only science can be used to explain everything.
Those that reject the existence of anything that science hasn't validated for them.

Science is a tool.


Doesn't being that arrogantly-dense hurt? Seems to me like it must.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2015
jr's scientism is showing.
Multivac jr_
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 07, 2015
jr's scientism is showing.

LOL, no I just gave up because you won't engage on any meaningful level.
Protoplasmix
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2015
As Stephen Hawking drily remarked: "If governments are involved in a cover-up, they are doing a much better job of it than they seem to do at anything else."
That's for sure, they absolutely are, because most of the 'anything else' part is the simplistic and easily maligned obfuscatory diversions and distractions designed to perpetuate the divisions betwixt and between the conquered, maintaining the status quo. And the rest *is* classified "secret" (i.e., covered up), because national (in)security.

The G8-1 summit is happening behind closed doors as we comment. The proceedings themselves, with billions of lives and the future of the planet in the balance, are literally _covered_up_.
Protoplasmix
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2015
Late edit - behind closed doors behind blockaded streets. There will be a press conference after, to announce any unanimous nonbinding decisions reached.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2015
Pseudoscience and conspiracy theory are not victimless crimes

They got that right, just look at the billions wasted looking for DM, breaking magnetic field lines, and scary black hole monsters. Talk about crimes against humanity!
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2015
They got that right, just look at the billions wasted looking for DM, breaking magnetic field lines, and scary black hole monsters. Talk about crimes against humanity!
How many more billions have to be printed before its real money? And how else will any more of it continue to flow (not trickle) to the top if there's nothing in circulation? Ah, but who needs scientific progress anyway, when you can buy instead the safety and security of offensively aggressive long range missiles and such?
Multivac jr_
1 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2015
Oh never mind.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 08, 2015
I didn't know Carl said this, but I agree with what he said:

""Science is the tool of the Western mind and with it more doors can be opened than with bare hands. It is part and parcel of our knowledge and obscures our insight only when it holds that the understanding given by it is the only kind there is."
Carl Jung

"Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints."

jeffensley
1 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2015
For example, just because we have theories to explain the size and formation of our universe doesn't mean they are even remotely correct. It seems some believe a theory is fact until proven otherwise.


In science, the word "Theory" has a very specific meaning. The fact that you're conflating it with "Hypothesis" is telling.


You got me. I should be using the term "hypotheses" when it comes to astrophysics and climate models. Thanks for the correction.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2015
I should be using the term "hypotheses" when it comes to astrophysics and climate models
@jeffe
unvalidated models, maybe

there is nothing "hypothetical" about our knowledge of GHG's, CO2 and it's interactions with WV (cycles and feedback) or the physics used in the models

the models provided insight and the predictions have demonstrated accuracy within the noted error bars that has been validated by observation and measurement

nor is there anything hypothetical about the physics used in AGW - from the means to differentiate between natural and artificial sources of CO2 to the rest of it

again, for your educated claims, you are proving that you have little knowledge regarding the scientific method

is that why you continue to self-reference etc?

thanks for the demonstration of Dunning-Kruger and the power of pseudoscience and WHY it really isn't a victimless crime to spread it as gospel via argument of authority (self or otherwise)
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 09, 2015
jeffensley FAILs again with an anti-science retort
You got me. I should be using the term "hypotheses" when it comes to astrophysics and climate models. Thanks for the correction
Your uneducated futile attempt at sarcasm fails.

AGW is based upon the proven & irrefutable aspect of radiative heat transfer, something you SHOULD have been exposed to as part of your claimed training as an "Environmental Scientist" where you claim you studied at Virginia Tech circa 1998.

Wasn't a particular Physics pre-requisite which SHOULD be an essential part of environmental assessment fully covered ? Did Virginia tech only give lip service or superficial basis ?
Did you pass the unit well jeffensley ?

Surely you would also have studied Probability & Statistics and IIRC back then Chaos theory would have been covered too, thus in concert with Statistical Mechanics you SHOULD have been able to appreciate integrating heat whether engine combustion or climate is NOT chaotic !
jeffensley
1 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2015

there is nothing "hypothetical" about our knowledge of GHG's, CO2 and it's interactions with WV (cycles and feedback) or the physics used in the models

the models provided insight and the predictions have demonstrated accuracy within the noted error bars that has been validated by observation and measurement

nor is there anything hypothetical about the physics used in AGW - from the means to differentiate between natural and artificial sources of CO2 to the rest of it


If we would simply state an increase in CO2 concentrations COULD lead to heating of the Earth due to the behavior of greenhouse gasses then I wouldn't have an issue. It's basic science. When we start talking about climate modelling and making predictions about what the changes will be, it implies an understanding of the climate which we simply do not possess. The predictive ability of climate models is unproven. If you believe otherwise it demonstrates YOUR lack of understanding of the scientific method.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2015
The predictive ...unproven.
@jeff
the predictions have shown to be accurate within the error bars -
http://www.nature...310.html

http://pubs.giss....al_3.pdf

http://www.scienc...629.full
We are constrained by the inevitable: the more likely a large warming is for a given forcing (i.e., the greater the positive feedbacks), the greater the uncertainty will be in the magnitude of that warming
no one said it would be spot on
just within a certain range

If you believe otherwise it demonstrates YOUR lack of understanding of the scientific method
i "believe" nothing
i DO, however, have evidence you're wrong
it also demonstrates that you are selective in your reading

just because you refuse to read anything that refutes your religious like belief, doesn't mean your belief is substantiated or justified

IOW-you're scientifically illiterate
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (11) Jun 10, 2015
jeffensley FAILs in claim
If we would simply state an increase in CO2 concentrations COULD lead to heating of the Earth due to the behavior of greenhouse gasses then I wouldn't have an issue
No. It DOES cause heating - its experimentally proven physics & according to "Experimental Methodology"

WHY jeffensley who claims a degree in "Environmental Science" CANNOT you understand Physics
https://en.wikipe...transfer

Leads to
http://en.wikiped..._forcing

jeffensley says
It's basic science
Yes but, YOU jeffensley FAIL to understand it !

jeffensley claims
The predictive ability of climate models is unproven
No ! The models published are within error bars - didn't you LEARN about measurment methodology & error bars in "Environmental Science" ?

jeffensley claims
.. YOUR lack of understanding of the scientific method
Idiot LIAR !

HOW can you NOT know your uni degree ?

Who r u ?
jeffensley
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2015
Oh FFS. Error bars??? A high school educated person with Excel and some historical data could match the predictions of our most complex models given the incredibly brief period of time they've been in use. How can you believe we should hold any confidence in the long-term prediction ability of these models when a long-term hasn't even passed? I'll give you the answer. Faith. This is your religion and you resent anyone who dares question the new Gospel. Get over it.

jeffensley
1 / 5 (4) Jun 12, 2015
Also, attempt for one second (I know it's hard but try) to take your mind off of CO2. I know you've been brainwashed into believing greenhouse gasses are the sole climate operators here on planet Earth but lets presume for a second that crazy things like solar radiation or atmospheric dust affect temperature too. Lets take an exaggerated example... would the Earth heat if solar output was reduced by a quarter and atmospheric dust increased due to a volcanic eruption, even with an increase in atmospheric CO2? The answer is no, it would cool off despite higher CO2 concentrations. CO2 and ghg's in general increase the POTENTIAL for heating. Heating occurs when the influence of ALL the other variables involved with the climate either remain constant or don't increase sufficiently to overcome the heating potential from GHG. I'm simply asking you guys to be intellectually honest about it and stop with your comical insults.
Captain Stumpy
4.8 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2015
Oh FFS. Error bars?
surely you jest, jeffe?
you claim to be well versed in science...???
A high school educated person with Excel and some historical data could match the predictions
is that what you did?
How can you believe we should hold any confidence in the long-term prediction ability of these models when a long-term hasn't even passed?
1- who said i did?
2- we get better and better every year, and as we learn more and add data to the models, they become more and more accurate... THAT is what i am putting confidence in... our ability to improve
Faith. This is your religion
Ah! so now you show your true stupidity
fascinating

Nope. i have NO religion, and in fact, i despise religions: period
ALL of them
(not faiths, mind you, but religions)

another point: i don't "believe" in anything... i follow the evidence

to date, you have provided almost ZERO evidence supporting your conjectures
(i don't count self reference)

quit with the butthurt
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2015
@jeffe cont'd
Also, attempt for one second (I know it's hard but try) to take your mind off of CO2
i don't focus ON CO2... i FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE

what is so hard for you to understand about those simple words?
which word do you not understand?
i?
Follow?
the?
or is it "Evidence"?
Lets take an exaggerated example
Lets NOT and say we did... how about you give me some actual EVIDENCE (and no self references UNLESS they are links to a reputable peer reviewed journal so that i can see a peer reviewed paper... not your private stash of hypocrisy and religious devotion, like dr roys page, or jvk's personal perfume sites)

give me STUDIES which have been validated, like i've posted here on PO
Like Lacis et al
Francis/Vavrus
etc!

& as for your "intellectually honest" crap... you are the only one not providing references to your "science" (IOW- pseudoscience)

intellectual honesty is being open to change a position in light of the validated evidence...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2015
last point @jeffe
I'm simply asking you guys to be intellectually honest about it and stop with your comical insults
lets talk about that:

your posts above are argument from authority, strawman and argument from ignorance
"Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving..."

https://en.wikipe..._honesty

if you can provide me with equivalent evidence (to my validated papers in reputable journals) that shows where the studies i've linked/referenced are refuted or demonstrated to be wrong, or have a BETTER explanation- i follow the evidence

i am far more likely to change MY mind that YOU are.. proven by your posts here
i am not self referencing but linking/referencing validated papers
I don't link to my personal sites
nothing i've linked has been proven fallacious

IOW- the ONLY people being "intellectually dishonest" is the TROLLS like you (deng, zephir, antiG, uba, cd, etc) pushing pseudoscience!
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 12, 2015
jeffensley FAILs stating
Oh FFS. Error bars???
Yes, hundreds of combinatorial measurements properly assessed - not simple !

jeffensley claims
A high school educated person with Excel and some historical data could match the predictions of our most complex models given the incredibly brief period of time they've been in use
As a claimed "Environmental Scientist" (ES) you FAIL to understand

Models do not singularly rely on history, any Dick can hash historical data. The models employ a plethora of methods based on physics re all heat transport in conjunction with Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) - you Dill !

Wasn't this covered in your claimed degree from virginia tech re intro to CFD for ES degree ?

jeffensley asked
How can you believe we should hold any confidence in the long-term prediction ability of these models when a long-term hasn't even passed?
Physics & integrated re fundamentals in relation to Statistical Mechanics.

You claim ES degree, crap !
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 12, 2015
jeffensley FAILs yet again at cognition with a claim
.. take your mind off of CO2
WHY ?
Other than Sol, what else is even close in W/m^2 Eg integrated ?

jeffensley claims
I know you've been brainwashed into believing greenhouse gasses are the sole climate operators here on planet Earth but lets presume for a second that crazy things like solar radiation or atmospheric dust affect temperature too
Solar radiation IS included that's WHY its called TOTAL Solar Insolation (TSI) NB "TOTAL" FFS !

You didn't learn it in your claimed degree in "Environmental Science" (ES) - students schooled specifically in that, missed essential Physics FFS ?

Re Atmospheric dust, heavy ie falls, time depends on grain size, winds & MASS, so far all negligible

jeffensley asked
..would the Earth heat if solar output was reduced by a quarter and atmospheric dust increased due to a volcanic eruption, even with an increase in atmospheric CO2?
Sure & not happened ie "Outliers" doh
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 12, 2015
jeffensley FAILs AGAIN in a claim
.. would the Earth heat if solar output was reduced by a quarter and atmospheric dust increased due to a volcanic eruption, even with an increase in atmospheric CO2?
Covered and I add this is an "Outlier" eg just like a meteorite or other low probability event over MANY consecutive climate periods

Didn't you cover Probability & Statistics in your claimed degree in ES - appears you missed HEAPS !

jeffensley says
The answer is no, it would cool off despite higher CO2 concentrations
Sure but, it would need to be a super-volcano Eg Yellowstone ea ~800K yrs !

jeffensley got one right
CO2 & ghg's in general increase the POTENTIAL for heating
Indeed as per
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

jeffensley you really are showing up you missed basic integration in Calculus for your claimed degree in Environmental Science !

Your spurious issues = "Outliers", Eg Sol's thermal inertia HUGE ie very SLOW

continued
Mike_Massen
3.1 / 5 (9) Jun 12, 2015
continued

@jeffensley says
Heating occurs when the influence of ALL the other variables involved with the climate either remain constant or don't increase sufficiently to overcome the heating potential from GHG
Touching on assumptions ? Scientists DON'T write like this

Please re-phrase re intrinsic assumptions

Eg
Are you saying all other heat sources haven't been integrated & you expect they might sum sometimes > CO2's ~1.5W/m^2, so find em please ?

OR that so far they're < CO2's 1.5 W/m^2 but, you think they sporadically get higher & we can't check & thus focus on with CO2 is wrong, so find em please ?

NB
1 Other heat sources identified
2 Rate of change of 1. is slow ie High Inertia !

In order for any to quickly exceed CO2 OVERALL would be equivalent to HUGE outlier event & noticeable as heat quanta over such a SHORT time would be akin to a super-volcano's output

jeffensley you come across as blissfully uneducated in Physics, Integration & Statistics !
jeffensley
1 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2015
Models do not singularly rely on history, any Dick can hash historical data. The models employ a plethora of methods based on physics re all heat transport in conjunction with Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) - you Dill!


And plenty of science dicks have been doing so. Adjusting and readjusting models every time they FAIL to predict temperature anomaly sufficiently well. Here's an honest guy writing about modelling. Read up...

http://blogs.scie...s-worse/
jeffensley
1 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2015
One of the fundamental assumptions in the model I am using is that the molecule exists in just one conformation in both water and the membrane...The assumption of a single conformation is fundamentally false since in reality molecules are highly flexible creatures that interconvert between several conformations both in water and inside a cell membrane. To overcome this assumption, a recent paper explicitly calculated the conformations of the molecule in water and included this factor in the diffusion predictions... To their surprise, the authors found that making the calculation more realistic made the predictions worse. While the exact mix of factors responsible for this failure can be complicated to tease apart, what's likely happening is that the more realistic factors also bring more noise and uncertainty with them. This uncertainty piles up, errors that were likely canceling before no longer cancel, and the whole prediction becomes fuzzier and less useful.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (4) Jun 12, 2015
errors that were likely canceling before no longer cancel


Do you understand what that means? It means the overly-simplistic model worked solely by chance. Variables that were not understood were not accounted for but in this case, the errors cancelled each other out. LUCK. Who knows maybe we are getting lucky with our climate model predictions. We won't actually know for decades and of course by that time, the ones we are currently running will be antiquated and replaced by new and improved models that have once again been corrected to account for failures in prediction. Yes, it's what science does, yes, the models should continue to do better. But "we bet better every year" is no argument to treat models with the fervent faith that some of you do nor does it justify the infantile insults you sling at anyone that dares question the "science" of modelling.
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 12, 2015
jeffensley FAIls again, as biochem is NOT heat integrated re Earth's energy balance
And plenty of science dicks have been doing so
Now you are being ugly, intentionally misreading & finding a link not in the same class re ANY foundational similarity ie Biochem modeling is NOTHING like climate modeling as there is NO fundamental issue which is INTEGRATING heat over the planet.

jeffensley you FAILED to answer my questions & instead throw up irrelevant & puerile attempts to obfuscate.

jeffensley you are an outright LIAR re your claim of a degree in "Environmental Science" unless it was awarded by a payment & NOT any sort of actual study in Physics & Maths !

jeffensley states
Adjusting and readjusting models every time they FAIL to predict temperature anomaly sufficiently well
This AGAIN goes to prove you don't understand Science is an asymptotic process, adjusting coefficients is standard practice - that is HOW its done - you Dill !

Who the f..k are you ?
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 12, 2015
jeffensley FAILs quoting
One of the fundamental assumptions in the model I am using is that the molecule exists in just one conformation in both water and the membrane...The assumption of a single conformation is fundamentally false since in reality molecules are highly flexible creatures that interconvert between several conformations both in water and inside a cell membrane.. (rest snipped)
Seriously jeffensley you show NIL understanding of Environmental Science re Heat & thus LIED !

A graduate of Environmental Science KNOWS full well the basis for climate change re AGW is ONLY earth's shift in thermal balance

Abundantly clear jeffensley LIED about his degree to fake His "Appeal to Authority" !

jeffensley has NIL education or understanding of Statistical Mechanics, the underlying foundations for heat & has proven his missing cognitive link so very often including failure to understand Integration

Choosing blog comment on biochem/molecules is a stupid FAIL !
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 12, 2015
jeffensley FAILs
Do you understand what that means?
Evidently you don't !
You cannot integrate biochem permutations re Heat at ANY meaningful tangible level/amount & NONE comes anywhere close to CO2's radiative forcing.

jeffensley be smarter, give up your dumb claim being "Environmental Scientist" you as heck have never written anything like one & betray your lack of understanding of heat transfer mechanisms PLUS nil appreciation of Statistical Mechanics PLUS ignorant of Integration (ie Maths) in that context

Why is it you are completely ignorant of this ?
https://en.wikipe...transfer

& how to assess comparative heat sources re integration planet wide, ie Look it up on google scholar !

jeffensley says
It means the overly-simplistic model worked solely by chance
Sure @ biochem entirely possible, permutations are NOT tangibly integrative re delta heat over ANY framework re climate - doh !

& I add, global NOT regional ie weather !
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 12, 2015
jeffensley if you actually want to progress the dialectic re AGW in a proper framework of discussion start with explaining the assumptions within your comment you made earlier in this thread, I quote
Heating occurs when the influence of ALL the other variables involved with the climate either remain constant or don't increase sufficiently to overcome the heating potential from GHG
Please re-phrase re intrinsic assumptions

OR do you accept my interpretation ?

And if so then expand re points for convergence ?

Eg you state "potential from GHG" suggesting its not quantified as a flux ie Shows its clear you have no Science training your use of the word "Potential" is contextually vague.

So do you imply there is ONLY potential that is unrealised or its potential is small & unproven or what ?

jeffensley those who trained in Science & especially Virginia tech as you claim, just don't make sloppy errors anywhere near as often as you, they are FAR more precise !
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2015
Here's an honest guy writing about modelling
@jeffe
so you think that a BLOG is equivalent to scientific studies which are published in a peer reviewed journal?
really?
that says a lot about you - and most of it points to a scientifically illiterate background
Also note, in his BLOG, he also cites ARTICLES, the Fermi paradox and ONE paper "Modeling the pharmacodynamics of passive membrane permeability", which has NOTHING to do with climate science at all

skipping past that point: where is a study validating his blog comments?
where are the studies of the models, like the ones that i provided to YOU?
better yet- where is the refute of the studies i provided?

this is one thing you seem to continue to epically FAIL at, jeff

you think a BLOG is equivalent to a study, and therefore is just cause for denial of the validated science

well then, you better go AN-hero because there are also BLOGS which state the US is run by aliens growing people for FOOD
2Bcontd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2015
@jeffe cont'd
Do you understand what that means?
the real hundred dollar question is:
do YOU know what the difference is between validated empirical evidence and conjecture?

this really is a GREAT demonstration of WHY pseudoscience, conspiracy theory and fundamentalist beliefs (belief in dogma regardless of the evidence) are SO dangerous and create victims!

You talked specifically about the models and how OFF they are, so i provide you with empirical evidence validated in other studies that specifically target the models and their accuracy...

Your evidence is strictly someone else's personal opinion being shared by you (your personal confirmation bias) - with NO studies

You accept it because you WANT to, and because you have a fundamentalist religious like attitude: regardless of the evidence, you will believe your OPINION over it
(Also Dunning-Kruger)

IOW- you've proven how dangerous stupidity and pseudoscience are !
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2015
I read this and stop. Biased from the beginning.Тypical thinking of abusers
@renTROLL
no, it isn't, really
When you allow arguments that are based upon delusion, pseudoscience and conjecture without evidence, then you lose the ability to think critically

Evolution is based on evidence/science

you are promoting a fallacious religious position, making claims like
evolution which are based only on wishful thinking and fillings
but yet you have NO empirical evidence for creationism!
NONE... in fact, what has been promoted as "creation science" has been proven -PROVEN- to have absolutely NO science whatsoever in it!

https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

your entire argument is personal conjecture based upon religious dogma
forcing data to fit a religion is NOT science

go preach your stupidity elsewhere, this is a SCIENCE site and you have NO empirical evidence supporting your religion, stupidity nor your creationist dogma

epic fail
jeffensley
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2015
Just out of curiosity, are you guys (Mike and Captain) getting paid to insult and spam away anyone who dares question the current narrative? If you're not actually getting compensated for the time spent trying to silence the unfaithful blasphemers, then I appreciate the zeal with which you follow your faith.

You seem to see Science as an elitist club where only those who paid to get in are allowed to express opinions, criticisms, and make interpretations. Luckily that's not the way the world works though it seems if you had your way you'd tell the idiot citizens to shut up and do whatever Science tells them to. Thankfully my ego didn't buy into the "I'm a scientist" thing so I'm not so attached to it so as to defend it when it's questionable. The uncertainties are there. People with practical knowledge of modelling know it. You're unwillingness to admit this simple point make you irrational and intelligent conversation impossible.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2015
You seem to see Science as an elitist club where only those who paid to get in are allowed to express opinions, criticisms, and make interpretations
@jeffe
nope
i actually hope for a future where people are not so scientifically illiterate
the scientific method allows for critical thinking and (i personally hope) will eventually get rid of negative social constructs like religious fundamentalism, conspiracy theory and pseudoscience

the whole problem i have with you (and the pseudoscience, conspiracy, religious fundamentalist, delusional etc crowd) is the fact that you assume your opinion is equivalent to validated evidence

the best way to not be conned is to always validate the claim

you've not been able to historically do this with anything like reputable evidence, and as for the religious nuts like ren... ???

to be cont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2015
You're unwillingness to admit this simple point make you irrational and intelligent conversation impossible
@jeffe
the ONLY thing that makes intelligent conversation impossible is when people make assumptions that are not valid and then require everyone else to accept it as authoritative (or valid), like your above post
you say
The uncertainties are there. People with practical knowledge of modelling know it
ok, now VALIDATE this claim with links and proof

I've historically provided evidence to you supporting my position on AGW in the form of studies published in reputable peer reviewed journals, etc

you are giving me conjecture, argument from authority with no validation and condescension / scorn, like
Do you understand what that means?
the real question is: do YOU?

so far, your argument is simple strawman argument from authority
where is your evidence refuting my studies?

THAT would be intelligent conversation
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 13, 2015
"make observations", think of interesting questions"

When my kids were in school, they would be encouraged to participate in a science fair. Unfortunately, the instructions left out the first two steps, make observations and think of interesting questions and jumped straight to formulate a hypothesis.
The first two steps are critical.
Early scientists had so many questions as so much was unknown. Today, the field of science in education and practice trumps up and promotes what they claim to know discouraging observations of what is claimed and discouraging questions.
The case of the physician who questioned the cause of certain ulcers was discouraged until he demonstrated on himself.
And there is a branch of science that asserts humans should not trust their senses when making observations. This shuts down any discussion of why people claim to see ghosts and talk to those who have died. One might think 'science' is afraid of what they might discover.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2015
Today, the field of science in education and practice trumps up and promotes what they claim to know discouraging observations of what is claimed and discouraging questions.
@ryggTROLL
of course, this only proves you are very unfamiliar with the scientific method

this also proves that your source of science is articles and blogs, not scientific studies

anyone who reads a study will know immediately that there are "uncertainties" (as jeffe puts it) and the method tries to get rid of as many of these as possible

the power of the scientific method is not in "discouraging questions" at all, but in discouraging lies and pseudoscience over provable, repeatable empirical evidence and the willingness to ALTER the POV for the sake of reality and good evidence

Even your ulcer evidence demonstrates this: he provided the empirical evidence which was accepted

i'm not saying the system is flawless, only that it's far better than conjecture and pseudoscience or religion
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2015
I have one question to you. Are you trying to live according to God's laws and principles?


Which god?
Multivac jr_
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2015
If you're not actually getting compensated for the time spent trying to silence the unfaithful blasphemers, then I appreciate the zeal with which you follow your faith.

The compensation is abstract and intangible; more scientific literacy benefits us all.
Also, use of words such as "unfaithful," "blasphemers," "zeal," and "faith" are complete misrepresentations of the nature and substance of what various commentators have been attempting to relate.
They're not trying to force you to see things their way, they're trying to show you how science works. Science is not a dogma, nor does it require faith. Quite the opposite, in fact.
That doesn't mean that we can't come up with questions that science can't address, but that's not somehow evidence that science is an arbitrary (and nefarious) belief system whose adherents are out to get you rather than a well-defined process that occasionally reveals information that some people find difficult to accept.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2015
Science unfortunately doesn't spend a lot of time delving into its own failures and short-comings which means I would have to conduct the research myself. Working a 40-50 hour week makes that difficult. A simple illustration of my skepticism toward models however takes me back to the IPCC 1990 FAR report where a temperature increase of "0 3°C per decade with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade" was predicted. There aren't many analyses where an uncertainty 160% the predicted value is kosher. Seems to me climate predictions get a free pass. Since the 1990 FAR report is one of the oldest large scale predictions, this is the best one to compare to. BUT, look up how well the predictions held up based on measured results and you'll find two completely stories. One says it did fantastic (http://www.skepti...880.png) and another says it is a complete failure (http://clivebest....p1.png).
jeffensley
1 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2015
You'll have to take out the extra ")" to see the graphs. Point being, demanding people react with faith to something that isn't concrete isn't fair. Labeling people deniers because they don't accept predictions as fact isn't fair. If you want people to take this thing seriously, you can't keep treating the science as infallible because every time these predictions are off, people are just going to say "I told you so" and dismiss the whole thing which accomplishes nothing.
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 13, 2015
jeffensley asked
Just out of curiosity, are you guys (Mike and Captain) getting paid to insult and spam away anyone who dares question the current narrative?
No. I can't speak for Captain_Stumpy. I look at your posts, which go to prove you are a LIAR & CHEAT !

You could NOT have gained uni degree in Environmental Science as claimed, proo fis you plainly show failure in Physics, esp you don't know Statistical Mechanics, you don't know specific/latent heats. You also don't know Probability & Statistics...

You harp on about chaotic aspects re heat but, all this is covered in Statistical Mechanics - you Dill !

You don't know Maths, can't understand integration in conjunction with Physics

ie A complete FAIL, a LIAR & CHEAT, you have NIL credibility here !

Lets see jeffensley, try & explain whats wrong with the experimentally proven Physics of
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

AND other than our stable Sol's TSI is there ANYTHING comparable to CO2 ?
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2015
Ren82 claimed
I read this and stop. Biased from the beginning.Тypical thinking of abusers. They have arguments in favor of evolution which are based only on wishful thinking and fillings, but have the audacity to protest that could be taught creationism in schools which is based on God's words and scientific evidence. What next? Talking about our savior in public places beyond human law? No wonder. Мost likely the truth will be interpreted as hate speech
Tell us Ren82 HOW your god communciates ANYTHING better than an idea from an old Book ?

Why Ren82 was your god silent watching 6 million jews murdered in WW 2 ?

Why Ren82 did your god create so immense suffering for EVERYONE for EVER because your claimed dog set up (entrapment) a young woman and KNEW the devil it created would LIE & CHEAT ?

Is this a sane idea Ren82 ?

Ren82, would you urge people treat their children the same way your claimed god treated all of us ?

Is your god a good example Ren82 ?
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 13, 2015
jeffensley FAILs in his claim
You seem to see Science as an elitist club where only those who paid to get in are allowed to express opinions, criticisms, and make interpretations
You jeffensley have claimed to be an "Environmental Scientist" yet DO NOT write like one & show immense ignorance of many aspects of Physics & Maths !

By all means express an opinion but, if its NOT congruent with Science you will be shot down for the LIAR & CHEAT you come across as !

I have no patience for dicks who make claims then prove they cannot have those qualifications.

Go away jeffensley, community college for you, get an education then & only then might you see that

"jeffensley, you are so incompetent you can't see just how incompetent you are !"

Physics jeffensley, get an education or retract your claims to have a degree in "Environmental Science"
and if you refuse then explain why you don't know Physics, Probability & Stats etc
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2015
Ren82 asks
I have one question to you. Are you trying to live according to God's laws and principles?
How does your god communicate Ren82 ?

There is more evidence for Zeus than a personal god from a small isolated place in middle east ?

So as thermodynamics has asked you WHICH god Ren82 - & HOW does it communicate ?

Anything better than an idea in an old middle eastern book that was badly distributed for 1500 yrs until humans worked out how to make a printing press ?

How did your impotent god Ren82, give ANY commandments or ANY information on how to alleviate suffering to the north & south american indians, the eskimos, australian aboriginies, chinese, indians, mongolians, russians, vikings etc

Why does the EVIDENCE show your claimed god acts EXACTLY like a very nasty & punishing Devil ?
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2015
jeffensley from immense IGNORANCE of Science says
Science unfortunately doesn't spend a lot of time delving into its own failures and short-comings which means I would have to conduct the research myself
No. Science is a discipline as such does not lament so called failures, it is a dynamic and asymptotic.

jeffensley you SHOULD have learned it in your Virginia Tech course in Environmental Science why not ?

jeffensley states
A simple illustration of my skepticism toward models however takes me back to the IPCC 1990 FAR report where a temperature increase of "0 3°C per decade with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade" was predicted. There aren't many analyses where an uncertainty 160% the predicted value is kosher
Quite understandable given that was 25 yrs ago, many models in their infancy dependent upon growing data & as I stated the progress of Science is Asymptotic - doh !

FACT you ignore jeffensley, is all these models based on Physics !
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2015
jeffensley claims
..1990 FAR report is one of the oldest large scale predictions, this is the best one to compare to
WRONG - unless fully apprised of methodology employed in THAT modelling approach in conjunction with its data set AND contrasted with more up to date using smaller cell size

Can you, if not why ?

jeffensley claims with immense ignorance & of how to quote links
BUT, look up how well the predictions held up based on measured results and you'll find two completely stories. One says it did fantastic http://www.skepti...1880.png and another says it is a complete failure http://clivebest....omp1.png
Different approaches, none have provenance ie jeffensley's FAILURE in Science Communication ie A big Dill !

Go to blog author & READ jeffensley !
http://clivebest..../?p=4697

"..resulted in an average surface temperature ~ 4 deg.C higher than an atmosphere free of CO2"
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2015
I have one question to you. Are you trying to live according to God's laws and principles?

Which ones? They contradict each other constantly and advocate some pretty awful things and right and wrong.
Ren, I have a few questions for you.
You believe the bible is over 2500-1900 years old?
You believe it was written by god himself through human followers?
You believe its been passed down generation after generation?
Do you believe god was the one who did the translating of the bible into new languages?
Did he personally pick what books to remove and edit and add from the bible the last 2500 years?
Do you see where I'm going with this?
Even if the bible was originally the word of god what makes you think the humans its gone through all this time have made no translation errors or embelished the stories or manipulated It for their own selfish reasons?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2015
I have one question to you. Are you trying to live according to God's laws and principles?

@ren
first- specify which god you are referring to (As Thermo pointed out above)
2- why is this relevant?
3- this IS a science site, not a religious forum
4- i can PROVE you do not live by your own "x-tian sky faerie" and that you do not abide by the teachings in the "holy comic" scripture you've previously posted in the past, so who are you to judge anyone?
I guess you are joking, but could you point where God's laws contradict and how these laws cause terrible things?
Would you like ME to join in?
I have historically shown you and your ilk how your own bible contradicts itself from the selling of girls and slavery to the definition of the 2nd covenant which you demonstrate here you are not aware of, and violate (which means you don't believe or trust your own sky faerie)

i know FAR more about your bible than you do... studied it far longer, too
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2015
Science unfortunately doesn't spend a lot of time delving into its own failures and short-comings
@jeffe
and again, this comment demonstrates you have no familiarity with the scientific method at all... science is built as much upon it's failures as its successes, from Newtonian physics (sperceeded by GR/SR, but still used today) to forensics
you'll find two completely stories
first off... those are links to random pics... not a study to discuss actual results of models

A paper led by James Risbey (2014) evaluates how accurate climate model temperature predictions have been while getting around the noise caused by natural cycles [SkeptiSci]
Hansen 2007 quantitatively verified the results of models re: penutubo
Roe 2007 shows that in a net POS feedback, uncertainty is skewed towards stronger climate responses

models are in a constant state of development
they don't need to be EXACT to show an accurate overall trend
your argument is a logical fallacy
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2015
@jeffe ctd
Point being, demanding people react with faith to something that isn't concrete isn't fair
i've never asked for this: EVER
Labeling people deniers because they don't accept predictions as fact isn't fair
no, you are labeled a denier because you absolutely refuse to acknowledge anything that doesn't conform to your personal world-view, like a religious fundamentalist

case i point: you are arguing about model predictability because they are not exact enough for you, failing to realize that models don't need to be exact to show an accurate overall trend

you also refuse to acknowledge validated studies, instead CHOOSING to accept blogs as empirical evidence over studies... THAT MAKES YOU A DENIER
If you want people to take this thing seriously, you can't keep treating the science as infallible
i have NEVER claimed science was infallible
only that it was a far better choice than random faith, politics or conspiracy, etc
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2015
one last, very important point, jeffe
demanding ...something that isn't concrete...
the problem you have demonstrated so far is simply this:

just because you CLAIM that something isn't concrete or valid doesn't mean it really isn't concrete or valid

i've produced validated studies which have yet to be refuted and show empirical measured data which is observed, etc... these type studies are not something that is questioned because it has been repeatedly validated
Key words there are REPEATEDLY VALIDATED

the best you can come up with is your opinion about something
like above- you give me two Rrandom pic's of graphs and then tell me it is justification for ignoring models... no other data, no justification of the data, no links showing how and what data was used or the methodology (normally found in studies, BTW)

IOW- you give me a couple pics and CONJECTURE... and assume it is equivalent to studies
- the very definition of scientifically illiterate
Multivac jr_
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2015
I think that intelligent and honest people understand quickly. For the others even hundred times to repeat the result still will be unsatisfactory. I see no sense to explain one thing a hundred times to a person who does not like the truth but prefers his illusions. Тhe man begins to grow and change in a positive direction when he came out of his comfort zone.


Oh the irony...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2015
I think that intelligent and honest people understand quickly
@ren
yes, we do. thanks for pointing that out
For the others even hundred times to repeat the result still will be unsatisfactory. I see no sense to explain one thing a hundred times to a person who does not like the truth but prefers his illusions
You know, you are absolutely right, Ren!

so from now on, i am simply going to report your religious diatribes as TROLLING and spam, ok? GREAT!

Why continue to engage you and provide you with science or content, links or proof since you are obviously NOT reading them and refusing to acknowledge the science we know?

you are arguing the "god of the gaps" argument and ignoring the actual science anyway!

THANKS for letting me know you are simply TROLLING us all!

it saves time!

Oh the irony...
@Multivac jr_
IKR? you aint kidding!
spit coffee all over my laptop !
ROTFLMFAO
jeffensley
1 / 5 (4) Jun 14, 2015
Captain, 1.) The graphs show two different analyses. One was from your Skeptical science site (which you later used as a reference) and showed a good match between IPCC FAR predictions while another analyses was linked to a wattsupwiththat and showed a poor match. If you bothered looking at them you'd see they both choose different temperature data sets to compare to.

2.) You didn't respond to the uncertainty in the IPCC predictions. No offense but it's easy to be accurate (hey the models were right!) when you have an uncertainty 160% the predicted value. In essence the measured temperature could rise between 0.1 and 0.8 degrees C per decade and the model would be considered accurate and thus politically "validate" AGW. Again, a highschooler with Excel and some historical temperature data could have matched that prediction. This does not elicit confidence in the process that some demand be taken seriously.
jeffensley
2.5 / 5 (4) Jun 14, 2015
3.) I've never denied that the Earth is warming so you can dispense with slapping that silly label on me that you try to use to shame people into silence. I believe the Earth IS warming and that humanity has a part in it. How dire the situation is and how big a part man plays is totally open to discussion/debate. The physical behavior of greenhouse gasses is settled science. Our understanding of the climate and our predictions of future changes is NOT.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2015
If you bothered looking at them
@jeffe
i looked at them both, but as i pointed out: there was no real context nor was there a study, methodology, or anything else
case in point:
here are two pics

http://media-cach...ef02.jpg

http://quicklol.c...ator.jpg

i can say that this proves that alligators can walk on their hind legs based upon the second link...

but that doesn't mean it is true, relevant to the topic of alligator anatomy, nor does it show source, methodology for results or the physics behind any of the claims
nothing

therefore, random pics, like dung posted or your post above, are simply irrelevant unless you can provide actual studies and source to show "the work" which actually validates the claim

... thus the ability to refute or substantiate is only based upon the studies, not the pictures

get it yet?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2015
You didn't respond to the uncertainty in the IPCC predictions. No offense but it's easy to be accurate (hey the models were right!) when you have an uncertainty 160% the predicted value
@jeffe
perhaps i got this confused with a dung post on another thread... sorry

the point is this:
a model does not have to be 100% accurate to accurately demonstrate a trend

i thought i made that clear 9 hours ago
I've never denied that the Earth is warming
so ?
Our understanding of the climate and our predictions of future changes is NOT
and again, whereas i can agree that our ability to predict is not 100% accurate, that doesn't mean those predictions are not helpful or able to predict a trend

and that is one of my main points...really. our models are HELPFUL
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 14, 2015
Politically 'correct' 'science:

"Hunt had been invited to the world conference of science journalists in Seoul and had been asked to speak at a meeting about women in science. His brief remarks contained 39 words that have subsequently come to haunt him.

"Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab. You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them, they cry," he told delegates."
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

The president of Harvard, Larry Summers was forced out for politically 'incorrect', but accurate remarks about women.

Without academic liberty, how can serious research proceed?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 14, 2015
"So, should we trust science? Well, that's like asking if we should trust what we see with our own eyes. And the only right answer is: Of course! Not because it's infallible — but because there is no alternative to relying on our best judgment as to what it is we see.

However, this is not to deny that due diligence"
http://www.npr.or...-science
Multivac jr_
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2015
Cpt. Stumpy:
i thought i made that clear 9 hours ago

How the heck do you manage to have so much patience?

And in other news...
His brief remarks contained 39 words that have subsequently come to haunt him.


Poor fella. I hope the backlash didn't make him cry. One thing I've noticed about that story is that the vast majority of his supporters who are trying to frame him as some kind of victim seem to be over 65 years old. I'd be willing to bet real money that that's not a coincidence.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2015
How the heck ... patience?
@Multivac jr_
i have gotten irritable at times, but in all honesty, my patience is not so much patience but an attempt to get more information out of someone... (sometimes by poking at them)

it is truly fascinating to see how their minds work! - how they dismiss validated evidence but cling to things like religion, debunked claims, conspiracy theory, political non-sense and other biased material

what is especially fascinating is people who claim to be educated (sometimes highly) but make the most egregious of errors, usually very basic (see: benni, alche/water_profit, cantdrive, reg mundy, etc)

watching benni (or others) rant about their "argument from authority" while making high school freshman errors in math (or logic) while touting their superior intellect/skill etc is fascinating... it makes me wonder about their "reality"

and think- they each influence youths/others around them!

SCARY, huh?
they are spreading this craziness!
Multivac jr_
3 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2015
SCARY, huh?
they are spreading this craziness!

I notice a lot of the techniques mentioned in the document linked below being used on these and other comment threads.

From the Introduction:
Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum..

There are several techniques for the control and manipulation of a internet forum no matter what, or who is on it. We will go over each technique and demonstrate that only a minimal number of operatives can be used to eventually and effectively gain a control of a 'uncontrolled forum.'
http://cryptome.o...pies.htm
jeffensley
1 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2015
the point is this: a model does not have to be 100% accurate to accurately demonstrate a trend


Nor are they necessary to even illustrate a trend... historical temperature measurements already do that. Yes, taking an observed trend and extending it into the future is what we do, how we try to prepare for things. If preparing is what we were attempting to do (watching changes, using them to our advantage) I wouldn't have much issue. The fact that we take a trend, become frightened, and suggest we do something to stop or reverse it is where we've gone too far. We're already pouring billions into renewable energy research and development. I'm not sure what else you want people to do.

and again, whereas i can agree that our ability to predict is not 100% accurate, that doesn't mean those predictions are not helpful or able to predict a trend

and that is one of my main points...really. our models are HELPFUL


Just out of curiosity what have they helped us accomplish?
Multivac jr_
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2015
I'm not sure what else you want people to do.
How about re-thinking the design and improving the resilience of our basic, essential infrastructure?

R. Buckminster Fuller pointed out decades ago that our buildings & such are *really heavy* and so are extremely difficult to move. Of course, if we hadn't built so much of our infrastructure right on the coast then we wouldn't have to work out how to move so much of it as the sea level rises, but what's done is done.

Likewise, if we had lighter, more flexible, & more mobile infrastructure we wouldn't face such daunting logistical challenges every time a natural or man-made disaster forces the relocation of huge numbers of people. It's a massive and insanely-expensive problem that is only expected to get worse the longer we fail to meaningfully address it as our population continues to rise.

We'll pay $$ now or we'll pay $$$$$ later. If we pay later, the "interest" will be brutal & we might not be able to pay (game over).
jeffensley
4 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2015
Likewise, if we had lighter, more flexible, & more mobile infrastructure we wouldn't face such daunting logistical challenges every time a natural or man-made disaster forces the relocation of huge numbers of people. It's a massive and insanely-expensive problem that is only expected to get worse the longer we fail to meaningfully address it as our population continues to rise.


I'm behind that statement 100%. Necessity will dictate such changes but it would be nice to head in that direction voluntarily. Back before we had private property, when drought struck a particular area, farmers simply moved elsewhere. Now, when a natural disaster happens, we spend billions to try to return a community to the way it was before instead of simply saying "Nature, you have a point. Maybe we shouldn't build this city below sea level" or in a flood plain, or in a desert, or on a fault, etc... We're a stubborn bunch.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2015
For the others even hundred times to repeat the result still will be unsatisfactory. I see no sense to explain one thing a hundred times to a person who does not like the truth but prefers his illusions. Тhe man begins to grow and change in a positive direction when he came out of his comfort zone
But your faith is your comfort zone.

So step out for a minute and explain how you rationalize this.

"archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog:
This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom...."

-Youve never addressed this ren. How come? Does it make you anxious?

How do you explain it?
Multivac jr_
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2015
I personally do not know sincere person who claims that God's law has some weaknesses and injustices.

"God's law" is not nor has it ever been the issue.

The issue is the decidedly-mortal humans who somehow believe that they know what their conception of "God" *really* thought/meant combined with the arguably-arrogant assumption that they're doing the rest of us a favor by judgmentally thumping their particular sacred text at us while seeking to legislate their personal beliefs into regular ol' laws that we all have to follow (thereby abrogating our supposedly God-given Free Will, but that's a separate issue).
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2015
hile seeking to legislate their personal beliefs into regular ol' laws that we all have to follow


Like the 'progressives' who are legislating their personal beliefs in to laws?
Multivac jr_
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2015
Like the 'progressives' who are legislating their personal beliefs in to laws?


No, not if the personal beliefs of said [scare-quote]Progressives[/scare quote] happen to be supported by rigorous evidence or peer-reviewed science.

You don't seem to understand that there's no double-standard here. It doesn't matter what one's personal political affiliation is; the *standard* of only enacting environmental regulations that are supported by hard evidence is one that everyone has to meet (or rather, everyone should at least *try* to meet that standard).
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2015
the *standard* of only enacting environmental regulations that are supported by hard evidence


Is that why the 'progressive' EPA director used fake email addresses to enact their socialist policies?

"Jackson sends an email notifying EPA staff that General Counsel Scott Fulton, Jackson's deputy administrator at the time her "Richard Windsor" alias was instituted, has resigned to take a position at the Environmental Law Institute."
https://cei.org/r...-windsor

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2015
"The House passed a bill Wednesday that aims to increase public scrutiny of the scientific research behind Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations.

Passed 241-175, the GOP bill would prohibit the EPA from using so-called "secret science" to justify its rules.

Instead, the EPA would have to make public the details of all the research upon which its rules rely. If a rule's science isn't made public, the EPA would not be allowed to write the rule.

The legislation is sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), House Science, Space and Technology Committee chairman. It answers a common GOP claim that the EPA uses "secret science" that prevents the public and the agency's opponents from criticizing research."
"The "secret science" bill, the White House said, would "impose arbitrary, unnecessary, and expensive requirements" upon the EPA."
http://thehill.co...-science
Multivac jr_
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2015
Is that why the 'progressive' EPA director used fake email addresses to enact their socialist policies?

"Jackson sends an email notifying EPA staff that General Counsel Scott Fulton, Jackson's deputy administrator at the time her "Richard Windsor" alias was instituted, has resigned to take a position at the Environmental Law Institute."
https://cei.org/r...-windsor

That was debunked a long time ago as a bunch of BS (or rather, the idea that it was some kind of scandal or smoking gun or whatever is BS).

Funny that you link to CEI, a so-called "think" tank that receives funding from the coal industry and filed the initial FOIA request for the emails, then "declared the lack of suspicious content somewhat suspicious." It took some seriously-twisted pretzel-logic to conclude that a lack of evidence can count as evidence for a claim that lacks evidence.

http://mediamatte...n/196277
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2015
debunked


By a 'liberal' media group that lies for democrats?

"All emails sent by "Richard Windsor" were sent by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson"

http://www.google...;cad=rja
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2015
"Jackson said that she used the "Richard Windsor" account as a secondary account due to the large amount of email that her primary official account receives. The use of a secondary email is common enough, but some observers have criticized the lack of transparency associated with this account."
""The EPA needs to honor the President's pledge of transparency and release these documents without redaction of the Administrator's email address – a big first step toward removing the blanket of secrecy in this agency," Vitter, the top Republican on the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, said in a statement on Wednesday."
http://freebeacon...oing-on/
Multivac jr_
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2015
debunked


By a 'liberal' media group that lies for democrats?

No, by the rather extensive investigation. The page I linked to links to it, but then you probably knew that.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2015
"Relying on tax returns and websites of wealthy U.S. foundations, a Daily Caller investigation has revealed the sources of more than $28.8 million in funding collected by the liberal Media Matters for America since 2003, the year before its formal incorporation. That sum represents 54 percent of every dollar the organization has raised in its history, making Media Matters a principally foundation-driven — not citizen-supported — activist group."
http://dailycalle...matters/
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2015
I'm not sure what else you want people to do
@jeffe
i've never said i want anyone to do anything except share reputable science and stop spreading pseudoscience
as this is the point of the article, i will expound: the power of the scientific method is its ability to repeat, etc. You don't see the eu (electric universe) building electric plasma rockets researching the sun, etc. you see them trying to undermine science or claiming something is "wrong" or "eu explains it better"... there isn't any proof, only a claim
The fact ...we've gone too far
how do you know? 150 years ago "too far" was heavier than air powered flight We're already pouring billions into renewable energy research and development but is this justification for continuing on the path we are on while ignoring the implication of CO2/feedback warming and the possibilities?
(very real, i might add, as we see them happening)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2015
I notice a lot of the techniques mentioned in the document linked below being used on these and other comment threads
@Multivac jr_
thanks for that link! good read!

No, by the rather extensive investigation. The page I linked to links to it, but then you probably knew that.
you aren't going to change ryggTROLL's mind
it is already made up
jeffensley
1 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2015
how do you know? 150 years ago "too far" was heavier than air powered flight ... but is this justification for continuing on the path we are on while ignoring the implication of CO2/feedback warming and the possibilities?


I personally feel just taking one step forward with the intent of controlling the Earth's climate is "too far". One, if we were actually successful, would we then step back and relinquish control back to Nature again? History says no, we would not. CO2 increasing was a blind accident and can be forgiven. Intentionally trying to control the elements of change, and thus creation, is criminal IMO. The Bible has done us a great disservice, creating in the human mind an illusion of an Eden on Earth, and whether you believe the story or not, the vision is there. It would be a catastrophic endeavor, for us and all life on Earth.
Multivac jr_
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 16, 2015
you aren't going to change ryggTROLL's mind
it is already made up
I think Mr. Backwards is worse than a mere troll ("rygge" is Norwegian for "reversing" or "back up," interestingly enough). Trolls are just out for self-gratification but this clown is up to something else. Then again, trolls also come from Norse mythology so maybe he aspires to be multi-talented?

The tone is more "shill" than "troll," especially since he reflexively responds to all comments with the same standard boilerplate Industry talking points (just like how Pavlov's pooches couldn't help themselves & would start drooling uncontrollably when they heard the dinner bell).

Mr. Backwards is the kind of person who would be glad to help the Priests burn down the library at Alexandria for a few bucks & not think twice about it. There are a lot of them around (even today), & I suspect that if suitably empowered, they would gleefully bring about another Dark Age. That makes him one of the bad guys.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2015
Typical invective from a 'liberal'.
"Word games are just one of the ways of silencing politically incorrect ideas, instead of debating them. "
"the political left's attempts to silence ideas they cannot, or will not, debate are a confession of intellectual bankruptcy. "
http://www.realcl...989.html

Jr. is satisfied that a 'liberal', billionaire Soros funded 'news' site cleared an EPA director forced to resign for using a false email address to hide her activities and supporting a govt that refuses to respond to freedom of information requests.

AGW 'scientists' feared FOIA requests, too. Why?
"Phil Jones wrote, "I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working on the IPCC 5th Assessment Report would be to delete all e-mails at the end of the process. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. "
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 16, 2015
"Tom Crowley, a key member of Mann's global warming hockey team, showed crass disregard for the lying and hiding: "I am not convinced that the 'truth' is always worth reaching, if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships." It's more important to keep the career back-scratching team happy.'
"We ourselves can't avoid blame for the science disaster uncovered by Mr. FOIA. As Peter Foster of London's Financial Times noted, we didn't heed President Dwight Eisenhower's warning. "Most people are aware of Ike's warning in 1961 about the military-industrial complex," Foster wrote. Our fatal error was to ignore what he said next: "In holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.""
http://www.cfact....ization/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 16, 2015
"Former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson used her private email to conduct official business, including with a lobbyist, in a possible violation of federal record laws."
"Alison Taylor, a vice president for the multinational company Siemens, emailed Jackson's "Richard Windsor" account in December 2009 asking if Jackson "might be able to spare a few minutes to meet with Siemens' global sustainability officer (who is my boss) Barbara Kux.""
"Jackson agreed. Shortly after, she sent a second email: "P.S. Can you use my home email rather than this one when you need to contact me directly? Tx, Lisa.""
http://www.washin...page=all
Multivac jr_
3 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2015
Typical invective from a 'liberal'.
"Word games are just one of the ways of silencing politically incorrect ideas, instead of debating them. "
"the political left's attempts to silence ideas they cannot, or will not, debate are a confession of intellectual bankruptcy. "


Hardly.

Several people *tried* to engage with you but there's clearly no point in doing so since you're willfully ignorant and damned proud of it. So is there any insightful commentary from your wingnut-gurus about dealing with someone like yourself?

In any case, I'm going to go ahead and "ignore" any further comments or replies from you since you're boring, repetitive, willfully-ignorant, and ultimately inconsequential. I'm sure that a suitably receptive and agenda-driven echo chamber where you can go play make-believe to your heart's content is only a click or two away.

And who the hell are you calling "leftist?" I'm a Radical Centrist and gosh darn it, people like me!

[over and out]
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2015
I'm a Radical Centrist

Not if you believe Media Matters.

And, as Thomas Sowell notes, 'liberals' call people names and run away when they can't respond.
OldFatherWilliam
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2015
.
All labeling of people is an act of violence. That now includes calling someone "liberal," since undeserved negative connotations have been added to it. It also includes blurring issues by categorizing people or situations with labels that lump together disparate issues. Most working Americans were required to contribute "insurance premiums" to OASDI (now renamed RSDI). As a matter of bookkeeping terminology, they are now entitled to all of their social security benefits since they paid for them. Along come certain political commentators lumping these earned benefits with unearned benefits such as Temporary Aid to Families with Dependant Children which merely follow our traditions of promoting the general welfare by charitable means followed by George Washington, as president, and by the better colonies, such as Pennsylvania, Maryland and Massachusetts with their alms houses, funded by property taxes before we even had a country. Any good Christian would subsidize the poor.
OldFatherWilliam
1 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2015
There is a problem with "reputable science" and "pseudoscience." We have no easy way to differentiate the two most of the time. The word "reputable" is a problem.
.
We live in an age of obvious conspiracies covered up by governmental lies promoted by the complicit mainstream media. The CIA bragged that it owned every significant major media commentator. They refer to MSM as "the Mighty Wurlitzer," ready to play any tune they designate. There is a document around the web in which the CIA calls the term "paranoid conspiracy theorist" a "weapon" to be used to discredit critics who did not swallow the Warren Commission report. Lee Harvey Oswald said he was an innocent "patsy," but he was kept from his day in court by murder by Jacob Rubenstein, a/k/a/ "Jack Ruby" from the Jewish mob out of Chicago. On Youtube, LBJ's mistress, Madeleine Brown says "Jack" met LBJ the night before JFK was shot.
.
Also, we don't do science. We believe what teachers tell us the scientists think.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.