Prev:  Tom Potter, you'd win more battles if you were part of something bigger.
Next: What is the biggest size of Molecule?
From: pegleg on 31 Dec 2009 12:05
EVERY single time someone says "the data clearly show" those words are
a political statement and nothing more.
The data are so corrupted that they show nothing and are good for
nothing any more.
From: Marvin the Martian on 31 Dec 2009 14:21
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:05:12 -0800, pegleg wrote:

> EVERY single time someone says "the data clearly show" those words are a
> political statement and nothing more. The data are so corrupted that
> they show nothing and are good for nothing any more.

Exactly. The true data didn't support their AGW conclusion, so they
altered it. WE know this from both the e-mail about the "trick" to "hide
the decline" and the Fortran code that was even commented as "fudge
factor". Data that was changed to support their preconceived conclusion
seems to be common in the AGW crowd, so everything published from these
proven frauds is now suspect. We have to start over with real scientist.


From: Spencer Spindrift on 31 Dec 2009 16:22
On Dec 29, 9:00 pm, "Ouroboros Rex" <i...(a)casual.com> wrote:
> Marvin the Martian wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:46:42 -0800, Eric Gisin wrote:
> >>> 1) A real science society wouldn't get involved in politics.

> >> To get funding, science grant proposals, had to use the PC word
> >> salad of the day.  There were posts made 15 years ago about this;
> >> IIRC, the term grantsmanship was used often.
>
> >> You are still trying to kill the messenger instead of identifying the
> >> real problem.

> > Why do you think that the hot fusion researchers, after promising a
> > working hot fusion reactor is just 10 years away, have been able to
> > promise that for the last 40 years?! Hot fusion is one of the big
> > funded research projects for engineers and physicist. If you
> > "discover" hot fusion, the funding immediately drys up and everyone
> > is unemployed. No way are we going to get hot fusion because it would
> > kill the golden goose.
>
Why do all my posts on this topic disappear into cyberspace? Could it
be because I bring up the taboo subject of overpopulation as the true
cause of climate change and advocate a death rate solution? If this
mss. vanishes I'll become a conspiracy k00k!

Spencer Primate
From: Poetic Justice on 31 Dec 2009 16:33
On 12/31/2009 4:22 PM, Spencer Spindrift wrote:
> On Dec 29, 9:00 pm, "Ouroboros Rex" <i...(a)casual.com> wrote:
>> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:46:42 -0800, Eric Gisin wrote:
>>>>> 1) A real science society wouldn't get involved in politics.
>
>>>> To get funding, science grant proposals, had to use the PC word
>>>> salad of the day. There were posts made 15 years ago about this;
>>>> IIRC, the term grantsmanship was used often.
>>
>>>> You are still trying to kill the messenger instead of identifying the
>>>> real problem.
>
>>> Why do you think that the hot fusion researchers, after promising a
>>> working hot fusion reactor is just 10 years away, have been able to
>>> promise that for the last 40 years?! Hot fusion is one of the big
>>> funded research projects for engineers and physicist. If you
>>> "discover" hot fusion, the funding immediately drys up and everyone
>>> is unemployed. No way are we going to get hot fusion because it would
>>> kill the golden goose.
>>
> Why do all my posts on this topic disappear into cyberspace? Could it
> be because I bring up the taboo subject of overpopulation as the true
> cause of climate change and advocate a death rate solution? If this
> mss. vanishes I'll become a conspiracy k00k!
>
> Spencer Primate


You are a conspiracy kook


ONLY YOU can prevent over population, die early and die often.




--




















From: Sam Wormley on 31 Dec 2009 17:03
On 12/31/09 1:21 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:05:12 -0800, pegleg wrote:
>
>> EVERY single time someone says "the data clearly show" those words are a
>> political statement and nothing more. The data are so corrupted that
>> they show nothing and are good for nothing any more.
>
> Exactly. The true data didn't support their AGW conclusion, so they
> altered it. WE know this from both the e-mail about the "trick" to "hide
> the decline" and the Fortran code that was even commented as "fudge
> factor". Data that was changed to support their preconceived conclusion
> seems to be common in the AGW crowd, so everything published from these
> proven frauds is now suspect. We have to start over with real scientist.
>
>

Spoken like a science illiterate. There are a lot of them in our
society.


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Prev:  Tom Potter, you'd win more battles if you were part of something bigger.
Next: What is the biggest size of Molecule?