Climate of suspicion
in [Physics]
|
From: Mike Jr on 23 Jan 2010 12:42 On Jan 23, 12:55 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 1/22/10 11:50 PM, Claudius Denk wrote: > > > On Jan 22, 4:32 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Climate of suspicion > >> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html > > >> "No matter how evident climate change becomes, however, other factors > >> will ultimately determine whether the public accepts the facts. > > > Unfortunately for the AGW alarmists the public is beginning to accept > > the facts. > *> The public, very unfortunately, is rarely very informed about science. This is a very elitist statement. We the people are doing just fine thank you. http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/dusting_off_the_political_fwor.html --Mike Jr.
From: Androcles on 23 Jan 2010 12:41 "oriel36" <kelleher.gerald(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:c46eb374-6209-4c2f-9715-f01a57ac9cb1(a)e25g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... Not even the basic planetary fact of daily rotation in 24 hours ============================== Fact? This a fact, Kellerher. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_time Right now, late January until early March, a sundial is running ~15 minutes out of synch with your wristwatch. Go and check, each day. 'Some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion in their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of their having received it from some person who has their entire confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever to get it out of their heads.'- Galileo Galilei This a fact, Kellerher. YOU are mentally deranged!
From: Mike Jr on 23 Jan 2010 12:44 On Jan 23, 12:35 pm, Unum <non...(a)yourbusiness.com> wrote: > On 1/23/2010 10:01 AM, Mike Jr wrote: > > > > > On Jan 23, 10:45 am, Unum<non...(a)yourbusiness.com> wrote: > >> On 1/23/2010 12:15 AM, Surfer wrote: > > >>> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:10:21 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr > >>> <n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >>>> You are supposed to get as much credit for disproving a hypothesis as > >>>> proving it. But with "climate change" (BTW, doesn't it aways?) you > >>>> only get funding if your work supports the predetermined political > >>>> objective. > > >>> There is a risk of that happening. > > >>> However wouldn't the fossil fuel industry have more than enough money > >>> to fund work that supports the opposing objective? > > >> Yes, and they do; > > >> Money the big oil companies are spending on lobbying;http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?cycle=2010&ind=E01 > > >> They spent $35+ million in the 2008 election cycle and ~$8 million > >> already in the 2010 cycle. > > >> Many reports of additional donations to denialist junk scientists;http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exx... > > >> And extensive astroturfing;http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/0819/energy-an... > > >>> cf > > >>> The Temperature of Science > >>> James Hansen > >>>http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfS.... > > >>> <Start extract> > > >>> The input data for global temperature analyses are widely available, > >>> on our web site and elsewhere. If those input data could be made to > >>> yield a significantly different global temperature change, contrarians > >>> would certainly have done that but they have not. > > >>> <End extract> > > >>>http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ > > > And who is donating to greenpeace? > > I don't know, but who cares? Oh how one sided of you. Thank you for demolishing your own argument. You guys are making this too easy. :-) --Mike Jr.
From: Androcles on 23 Jan 2010 12:46 "Unum" <noneof(a)yourbusiness.com> wrote in message news:hjfc07$v5o$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On 1/23/2010 9:55 AM, Mike Jr wrote: >> On Jan 22, 10:22 pm, Unum<non...(a)yourbusiness.com> wrote: >>> On 1/22/2010 8:10 PM, Mike Jr wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jan 22, 8:06 pm, Peter Franks<n...(a)none.com> wrote: >>>>> Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>> Climate of suspicion >>>>>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html >>> >>>>>> "No matter how evident climate change becomes, however, other factors >>>>>> will ultimately determine whether the public accepts the facts. >>>>>> Empirical evidence shows that people tend to react to reports on >>>>>> issues >>>>>> such as climate change according to their personal values (see page >>>>>> 296). Those who favour individualism over egalitarianism are more >>>>>> likely >>>>>> to reject evidence of climate change and calls to restrict emissions. >>>>>> And the messenger matters perhaps just as much as the message. People >>>>>> have more trust in experts � and scientists � when they sense that >>>>>> the >>>>>> speaker shares their values. The climate-research community would >>>>>> thus >>>>>> do well to use a diverse set of voices, from different backgrounds, >>>>>> when >>>>>> communicating with policy-makers and the public. And scientists >>>>>> should >>>>>> be careful not to disparage those on the other side of a debate: a >>>>>> respectful tone makes it easier for people to change their minds if >>>>>> they >>>>>> share something in common with that other side. >>> >>>>> That's just common human decency. >>> >>>>> The problem with a 'scientist' is that by and large they are driven to >>>>> prove their hypothesis. If the data don't agree, then they conclude >>>>> that the data are wrong and go about proving it a different way. >>>>> After >>>>> all, they don't get fame and fortune proving their hypotheses wrong, >>>>> do >>>>> they?. >>> >>>> You are supposed to get as much credit for disproving a hypothesis as >>>> proving it. But with "climate change" (BTW, doesn't it aways?) you >>>> only get funding if your work supports the predetermined political >>>> objective. That isn't science, that is advocacy. >>> >>> I think you need to prove your hypothesis. >>> >>>> Decide; are you a scientist or a politician? Nature's editors have. >>> >>> Unsubstantiated bullshit. >> >> How eloquent.~ > > Additional lack of substantiation noted. How are the spirits, Timo?
From: Androcles on 23 Jan 2010 12:52
"Mike Jr" <n00spam(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:56f14039-5680-4215-9468-ab8a6e34af2f(a)o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... On Jan 23, 12:35 pm, Unum <non...(a)yourbusiness.com> wrote: > On 1/23/2010 10:01 AM, Mike Jr wrote: > > > > > On Jan 23, 10:45 am, Unum<non...(a)yourbusiness.com> wrote: > >> On 1/23/2010 12:15 AM, Surfer wrote: > > >>> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:10:21 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr > >>> <n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >>>> You are supposed to get as much credit for disproving a hypothesis as > >>>> proving it. But with "climate change" (BTW, doesn't it aways?) you > >>>> only get funding if your work supports the predetermined political > >>>> objective. > > >>> There is a risk of that happening. > > >>> However wouldn't the fossil fuel industry have more than enough money > >>> to fund work that supports the opposing objective? > > >> Yes, and they do; > > >> Money the big oil companies are spending on > >> lobbying;http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?cycle=2010&ind=E01 > > >> They spent $35+ million in the 2008 election cycle and ~$8 million > >> already in the 2010 cycle. > > >> Many reports of additional donations to denialist junk > >> scientists;http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exx... > > >> And extensive > >> astroturfing;http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/0819/energy-an... > > >>> cf > > >>> The Temperature of Science > >>> James Hansen > >>>http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfS... > > >>> <Start extract> > > >>> The input data for global temperature analyses are widely available, > >>> on our web site and elsewhere. If those input data could be made to > >>> yield a significantly different global temperature change, contrarians > >>> would certainly have done that but they have not. > > >>> <End extract> > > >>>http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ > > > And who is donating to greenpeace? > > I don't know, but who cares? Oh how one sided of you. Thank you for demolishing your own argument. You guys are making this too easy. :-) --Mike Jr. Greenpeace are not protesting at Kingsnorth power station at the moment, they are tucked up in their warm little houses busily burning coal to keep warm in the snow. Thank you for demolishing greenpeace's own argument. A dumbfuck like you makes it too easy. |