Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Heartland Institute climate denial
43 views
Skip to first unread message
uncarollo
May 8, 2012, 9:54:40 PM5/8/12
to
The Heartland Institute, a fiercely conservative/libertarian think
tank that champions denial of climate change, briefly ran a billboard
in Chicago last week featuring a photo of notorious criminal Ted
Kaczynski (aka the Unabomber) next to the message "I still believe in
global warming. Do you?" Heartland allegedly promised future ads
featuring Charles Manson and Osama bin Laden, but pulled the billboard
(it was electronic) after it was universally derided, even by those
who deny climate change, some of whom said they will no longer
participate in Heartland's annual climate denial conference.
Heartland's decision to quickly pull the ad may also have been
influenced by a flood of negative feedback from their funders. The
Diageo Beverage Company and State Farm Insurance say they will no
longer support the group, as did General Motors recently, because of
it's extremism and climate denial.
Heartland explained their effort as "an experiment" necessary to raise
the issue. That's 'cover our ass' hogwash. Anthony Watts, a leader of
the climate denial cause, apologized that Heartland was just
experiencing "battle fatigue." Watts was closer to the truth than he
probably realized. This billboard, and the accompanying explanation on
Heartland's website, are in fact a clarion demonstration of how
climate change is not a battle about facts and evidence as much as it
is an ideological fight over whose tribe will win, and how the more
one side feels it's losing ground, the more passionate/louder/uglier/
dumber they get.
Any fair-minded reader of Heartland's online justification for this
campaign can easily see that it veers far from the facts about climate
change, and falls deeply into chasm of closed-minded passionate
ideology. Consider these statements: Heartland suggests that
associating Kaczynski and Manson with climate change undercuts the
whole case for global warming because "... what these murderers and
madmen have said differs very little from what spokespersons for the
United Nations, journalists for the "mainstream" media, and liberal
politicians say about global warming." If that tortured argument
doesn't stun any reasonable thinker -- even climate change doubters
who still have a bit of self-respect for their own intelligence -- try
this one. Heartland goes on to charge that "The most prominent
advocates of global warming aren't scientists. They are murderers,
tyrants, and madmen." Some arguably more prominent advocates of global
warming than Kaczynski and Manson include such 'murders, tyrants, and
madmen' as the Pope, the Dalai Lama, most Nobel Prize winners, the
heads of pretty much every university on the planet, etc.
tank that champions denial of climate change, briefly ran a billboard
in Chicago last week featuring a photo of notorious criminal Ted
Kaczynski (aka the Unabomber) next to the message "I still believe in
global warming. Do you?" Heartland allegedly promised future ads
featuring Charles Manson and Osama bin Laden, but pulled the billboard
(it was electronic) after it was universally derided, even by those
who deny climate change, some of whom said they will no longer
participate in Heartland's annual climate denial conference.
Heartland's decision to quickly pull the ad may also have been
influenced by a flood of negative feedback from their funders. The
Diageo Beverage Company and State Farm Insurance say they will no
longer support the group, as did General Motors recently, because of
it's extremism and climate denial.
Heartland explained their effort as "an experiment" necessary to raise
the issue. That's 'cover our ass' hogwash. Anthony Watts, a leader of
the climate denial cause, apologized that Heartland was just
experiencing "battle fatigue." Watts was closer to the truth than he
probably realized. This billboard, and the accompanying explanation on
Heartland's website, are in fact a clarion demonstration of how
climate change is not a battle about facts and evidence as much as it
is an ideological fight over whose tribe will win, and how the more
one side feels it's losing ground, the more passionate/louder/uglier/
dumber they get.
Any fair-minded reader of Heartland's online justification for this
campaign can easily see that it veers far from the facts about climate
change, and falls deeply into chasm of closed-minded passionate
ideology. Consider these statements: Heartland suggests that
associating Kaczynski and Manson with climate change undercuts the
whole case for global warming because "... what these murderers and
madmen have said differs very little from what spokespersons for the
United Nations, journalists for the "mainstream" media, and liberal
politicians say about global warming." If that tortured argument
doesn't stun any reasonable thinker -- even climate change doubters
who still have a bit of self-respect for their own intelligence -- try
this one. Heartland goes on to charge that "The most prominent
advocates of global warming aren't scientists. They are murderers,
tyrants, and madmen." Some arguably more prominent advocates of global
warming than Kaczynski and Manson include such 'murders, tyrants, and
madmen' as the Pope, the Dalai Lama, most Nobel Prize winners, the
heads of pretty much every university on the planet, etc.
Peter Webb
May 9, 2012, 1:04:41 AM5/9/12
to
> Some arguably more prominent advocates of global
> warming than Kaczynski and Manson include such 'murders, tyrants, and
> madmen' as the Pope, the Dalai Lama,
how appropriate.
> most Nobel Prize winners,
Invented fact, aka "lie".
> the
> heads of pretty much every university on the planet,
> etc.
So lets get this straight. You mention two climate Believers by name, and
they turn out to be religious leaders.
And all the rest turn out to be imaginary - just lies that you invented.
Why do you Believers feel the need to lie so much? There are plenty of
people who do believe in AGW, so why did you need to invent a lie? Force of
habit?
Chris L Peterson
May 9, 2012, 1:58:57 AM5/9/12
to
On Tue, 8 May 2012 18:54:40 -0700 (PDT), uncarollo <chri...@aol.com>
wrote:
>The Heartland Institute, a fiercely conservative/libertarian think
>tank that champions denial of climate change...
Heartland is not a think tank. It's a lobbying organization for the
oil industry and other special interests that are threatened by
science and the scientific method.
wrote:
>The Heartland Institute, a fiercely conservative/libertarian think
Heartland is not a think tank. It's a lobbying organization for the
oil industry and other special interests that are threatened by
science and the scientific method.
Chris.B
May 9, 2012, 2:01:43 AM5/9/12
to
Now all take a deep breath. Do you really want another 300 post
argument with Webb, the uneducated, climate troll?
What will you gain? You won't educate Webb. Because you can't. Not
even if you are a top climate scientist with all the facts at the tip
of your tongue.
Those who argue with a fool have a fool for a client. You merely give
the fool the oxygen to repeat themselves ad infinitum.
So what else do you hope to gain personally from yet another climate
argument? Some self importance in advanced pedantry?
Webb the climate troll does not deserve your attention. He has proved
it repeatedly. You would be arguing with a house brick. Go and find
your own house brick if you are short of an opponent for your blinding
intellect and wit.
Do keep us informed of your progress in convincing the house brick of
your intellectual superiority.
argument with Webb, the uneducated, climate troll?
What will you gain? You won't educate Webb. Because you can't. Not
even if you are a top climate scientist with all the facts at the tip
of your tongue.
Those who argue with a fool have a fool for a client. You merely give
the fool the oxygen to repeat themselves ad infinitum.
So what else do you hope to gain personally from yet another climate
argument? Some self importance in advanced pedantry?
Webb the climate troll does not deserve your attention. He has proved
it repeatedly. You would be arguing with a house brick. Go and find
your own house brick if you are short of an opponent for your blinding
intellect and wit.
Do keep us informed of your progress in convincing the house brick of
your intellectual superiority.
Peter Webb
May 9, 2012, 3:15:34 AM5/9/12
to
"Chris.B" <chr...@nypost.dk> wrote in message
news:4daaed4a-962f-432f...@cl4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> Now all take a deep breath. Do you really want another 300 post
> argument with Webb, the uneducated, climate troll?
>
If you think I have said something incorrect, you should cut-and-paste it in
> argument with Webb, the uneducated, climate troll?
>
context so we can have a look at it. Chances are, its just a
misunderstanding on your part. If it turns out that I have made an error, I
can correct it and learn something.
> What will you gain? You won't educate Webb. Because you can't.
> Not
> even if you are a top climate scientist with all the facts at the tip
> of your tongue.
>
the tip of your tongue" hangs around sci.physics, this is a fact that you
have decided to make up. aka a "lie".
Why do you Believers feel the need to lie so much?
> Those who argue with a fool have a fool for a client. You merely give
> the fool the oxygen to repeat themselves ad infinitum.
>
> So what else do you hope to gain personally from yet another climate
> argument? Some self importance in advanced pedantry?
>
> Webb the climate troll does not deserve your attention. He has proved
> it repeatedly. You would be arguing with a house brick. Go and find
> your own house brick if you are short of an opponent for your blinding
> intellect and wit.
>
> Do keep us informed of your progress in convincing the house brick of
> your intellectual superiority.
You never identify anything which I have said which you consider incorrect.
> the fool the oxygen to repeat themselves ad infinitum.
>
> So what else do you hope to gain personally from yet another climate
> argument? Some self importance in advanced pedantry?
>
> Webb the climate troll does not deserve your attention. He has proved
> it repeatedly. You would be arguing with a house brick. Go and find
> your own house brick if you are short of an opponent for your blinding
> intellect and wit.
>
> Do keep us informed of your progress in convincing the house brick of
> your intellectual superiority.
I am always pointing out mistakes which Believers make. Indeed, the post you
are replying to was exactly that - me pointing out some obvious errors in
the claims of the Believers.
As you snipped my entire post, and don't identify anything in it which
consider wrong, I assume you agree with my statements? And that uncarrolo's
post contained factual errors and frankly stupid arguments?
If so, why didn't you respond to uncarralo post and point out it was shit,
instead of just snipping the entire discourse and going into some random
ad-hominem attack?
Or is truth unimportant to you?
Chris.B
May 9, 2012, 4:12:49 AM5/9/12
to
Now all take a deep breath. Do you really want another 300 post
argument with Webb, the uneducated, climate troll?
What will you gain? You won't educate Webb. Because you can't. Not
argument with Webb, the uneducated, climate troll?
even if you are a top climate scientist with all the facts at the tip
of your tongue.
of your tongue.
wsne...@hotmail.com
May 9, 2012, 5:55:53 AM5/9/12
to
On May 9, 1:58 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 May 2012 18:54:40 -0700 (PDT), uncarollo <chris1...@aol.com>
have something against those who use gasoline or diesel in their daily
lives? Do you drive a car or fly on aircraft? Why not walk everywhere?
Do you also have something against those who own and use products such
as PCs, phones, etc., that would require the use of oil and other
fossil fuels?
If there were no oil industry, what would your life look like? Why
not set an example and stop using anything and everything that
required the consumption of oil to produce and operate?
> On Tue, 8 May 2012 18:54:40 -0700 (PDT), uncarollo <chris1...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The Heartland Institute, a fiercely conservative/libertarian think
> >tank that champions denial of climate change...
>
> Heartland is not a think tank. It's a lobbying organization for the
> oil industry and other special interests that are threatened by
> science and the scientific method.
So what is it that you have against the oil industry? Do you also
>
> >The Heartland Institute, a fiercely conservative/libertarian think
> >tank that champions denial of climate change...
>
> Heartland is not a think tank. It's a lobbying organization for the
> oil industry and other special interests that are threatened by
> science and the scientific method.
have something against those who use gasoline or diesel in their daily
lives? Do you drive a car or fly on aircraft? Why not walk everywhere?
Do you also have something against those who own and use products such
as PCs, phones, etc., that would require the use of oil and other
fossil fuels?
If there were no oil industry, what would your life look like? Why
not set an example and stop using anything and everything that
required the consumption of oil to produce and operate?
wsne...@hotmail.com
May 9, 2012, 5:57:41 AM5/9/12
to
On May 9, 2:01 am, "Chris.B" <chri...@nypost.dk> wrote:
> Now all take a deep breath. Do you really want another 300 post
> argument with Webb, the uneducated, climate troll?
There have been no "300 post arguments" because Peterson has provided
> Now all take a deep breath. Do you really want another 300 post
> argument with Webb, the uneducated, climate troll?
no arguments.
Chris L Peterson
May 9, 2012, 10:37:33 AM5/9/12
to
On Wed, 9 May 2012 02:55:53 -0700 (PDT), wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
>So what is it that you have against the oil industry?
In this case, what I object to is their underhanded funding of
>So what is it that you have against the oil industry?
organizations that attempt to influence public opinion- in ways that
harm all of society- by outright lying.
uncarollo
May 9, 2012, 1:28:38 PM5/9/12
to
Florida
Don't forget to come armed.
Chris.B
May 9, 2012, 2:51:56 PM5/9/12
to
On May 9, 7:28 pm, uncarollo <chris1...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Meeting of the "Flat Earth Society" August 27 to 30, 2012 / Tampa
> Florida
>
> Don't forget to come armed.
With good humour?
>
> Meeting of the "Flat Earth Society" August 27 to 30, 2012 / Tampa
> Florida
>
> Don't forget to come armed.
Do they limbo dance _under_ the doors to their meetings?
Peter Webb
May 10, 2012, 2:19:58 AM5/10/12
to
news:aea15149-3836-4e6a...@o13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
This would be so much more convincing if you had been able to identify a
single error in what I said....
As it is, your only response is to denounce me as a heretic and ask other
people who share your religion to not listen to me ... I guess there is no
arguing facts or science with religious fundamentalists.
single error in what I said....
As it is, your only response is to denounce me as a heretic and ask other
people who share your religion to not listen to me ... I guess there is no
arguing facts or science with religious fundamentalists.
wsne...@hotmail.com
May 10, 2012, 5:43:39 AM5/10/12
to
of September. You should probably go there, it would be a good chance
for you to hang out with like-minded individuals.
Maybe you can carpool with this voter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
0bama is springing for the gas.
wsne...@hotmail.com
May 10, 2012, 6:00:17 AM5/10/12
to
On May 9, 10:37 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
they harmed you?
You might re-read the Constitution, WRT freedom of speech.
You didn't address the other questions about the benefits that you
derive from oil consumption.
> On Wed, 9 May 2012 02:55:53 -0700 (PDT), wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On May 9, 1:58 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>> Heartland is not a think tank. It's a lobbying organization for the
>>> oil industry and other special interests that are threatened by
>>> science and the scientific method.
>> On May 9, 1:58 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>> Heartland is not a think tank. It's a lobbying organization for the
>>> oil industry and other special interests that are threatened by
>>> science and the scientific method.
> >So what is it that you have against the oil industry?
>
> In this case, what I object to is their underhanded funding of
> organizations that attempt to influence public opinion- in ways that
> harm all of society- by outright lying.
How is "all of society" being "harmed" by the oil companies? Have
>
> In this case, what I object to is their underhanded funding of
> organizations that attempt to influence public opinion- in ways that
> harm all of society- by outright lying.
they harmed you?
You might re-read the Constitution, WRT freedom of speech.
You didn't address the other questions about the benefits that you
derive from oil consumption.
Message has been deleted
RichA
May 10, 2012, 11:14:53 PM5/10/12
to
On May 9, 1:58 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 May 2012 18:54:40 -0700 (PDT), uncarollo <chris1...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The Heartland Institute, a fiercely conservative/libertarian think
> >tank that champions denial of climate change...
>
> Heartland is not a think tank. It's a lobbying organization for the
> oil industry and other special interests that are threatened by
> science and the scientific method.
Much as the pockets of soooo many Al Gore's, climate scientists,
>
> >The Heartland Institute, a fiercely conservative/libertarian think
> >tank that champions denial of climate change...
>
> Heartland is not a think tank. It's a lobbying organization for the
> oil industry and other special interests that are threatened by
> science and the scientific method.
politicians and bureaucrats are threatened by proving climate change
is B.S.
Thad Floryan
May 14, 2012, 10:16:14 PM5/14/12
to
before he thinks of that and, for that matter, even running for his
alleged 2012 reelection:
Cover of Newsweek: FIRST GAY PRESIDENT
May 21, 2012 issue.
These are just a few of the headlines appearing today:
<http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-newsweek-obama-first-gay-president-20120514,0,5001068.story>
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/14/newsweek-calls-obama-first-gay-president-on-cover/>
<http://www.syracuse.com/have-you-heard/index.ssf/2012/05/newsweek_cover_calls_barack_ob.html>
<http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/120514/newsweek-cover-obama-countrys-first-gay-presiden>
This next one is a CHICAGO ABC News report:
<http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/national_world&id=8660339>
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/newsweek-cover-obama-gay-president/story?id=16338110>
<http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/05/obama-newsweek-cover-gay-president-/1>
<http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2012/05/here-newsweeks-big-gay-obama-cover/52266/>
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/newsweek-cover-labels-obama-the-first-gay-president--20120514>
<http://news.yahoo.com/newsweeks-next-cover-obama-first-gay-president-175739378--abc-news-politics.html>
<http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-05-13/politics/31685948_1_newsweek-time-first-gay-president>
and thousands more. His murdered buddy's mama speaks up, too:
<http://patdollard.com/2011/11/mother-of-obamas-murdered-gay-lover-speaks-up/>
Chris L Peterson
May 15, 2012, 12:19:51 AM5/15/12
to
On Wed, 9 May 2012 02:57:41 -0700 (PDT), wsne...@hotmail.com wrote:
>There have been no "300 post arguments" because Peterson has provided
>no arguments.
Because anybody who believes AGW isn't real is too stupid to
>There have been no "300 post arguments" because Peterson has provided
>no arguments.
understand any science at all. Why waste time on idiots?
Peter Webb
May 15, 2012, 9:30:12 PM5/15/12
to
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:s9m3r75f0i82ahv69...@4ax.com...
Lets see if this statement of yours bears scientific scrutiny.
Prof Ivar Giaever is a Nobel Prize winning physicist (for quantum tunneling
in superconductors), but he is a climate skeptic.
Are you claiming that he doesn't understand any science at all?
And, of course, there are many others.
That's the problem with you AGW Believers - you simply make up facts that
don't bear any scientific scrutiny at all. You must hate science.
Why the constant need to lie?
Chris L Peterson
May 16, 2012, 12:59:43 AM5/16/12
to
On Wed, 16 May 2012 11:30:12 +1000, "Peter Webb"
<r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Lets see if this statement of yours bears scientific scrutiny.
>
>Prof Ivar Giaever is a Nobel Prize winning physicist (for quantum tunneling
>in superconductors), but he is a climate skeptic.
>
>Are you claiming that he doesn't understand any science at all?
He is not competent to have an opinion about climate science that
<r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Lets see if this statement of yours bears scientific scrutiny.
>
>Prof Ivar Giaever is a Nobel Prize winning physicist (for quantum tunneling
>in superconductors), but he is a climate skeptic.
>
>Are you claiming that he doesn't understand any science at all?
differs from the consensus of climate scientists.
Look up the appeal to authority fallacy.
anorton
May 16, 2012, 2:08:15 AM5/16/12
to
"Peter Webb" <r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jov00s$ben$1...@news.albasani.net...
present mental condition.
If Giaever is stating that his objection is a valid scientific one, he
should publish his detailed technical objections in a peer reviewed paper
that others can examine carefully and to which they can make rebuttals or
confirmations. He has not. He has never published anything academic in the
field of climate science. This is the difference between true scientific
debate and just spouting off. Giaever apparently knew how this worked at
one time, but he is 83 and it seems he has forgotten.
20 years ago there was some valid academic debate. There is no longer any
serious academic debate on the general validity of AGW. Of course you know
that, but you chalk it up to a vast conspiracy of thousands of immoral,
lying academics who are doing it just to keep their salaries. Perhaps no
one told them that the fossil fuel industry would pay lavishly for valid
evidence firmly against AGW. Infact it is amazing that control over this
conspiracy is so good no such evidence has surfaced.
Peter Webb
May 16, 2012, 3:32:43 AM5/16/12
to
news:iuc6r7l0kupkvpjie...@4ax.com...
Well, that's your opinion. Which I note is a thinly disguised variant of the
"appeal to authority fallacy", ie his opinion is not that of the
"authorities" therefore it must be wrong.
> Look up the appeal to authority fallacy.
>
Indeed!
But returning to the topic, you didn't answer my question.
You said:
"Because anybody who believes AGW isn't real is too stupid to understand any
science at all."
I pointed out that Professor Ivan Giaver is a Nobel prize winning physicist
who is skeptical about AGW being real.
So, are you claiming that Prof Ivar Giaever is "too stupid to understand any
science at all." ??
Well?
"appeal to authority fallacy", ie his opinion is not that of the
"authorities" therefore it must be wrong.
> Look up the appeal to authority fallacy.
>
But returning to the topic, you didn't answer my question.
You said:
"Because anybody who believes AGW isn't real is too stupid to understand any
science at all."
who is skeptical about AGW being real.
So, are you claiming that Prof Ivar Giaever is "too stupid to understand any
science at all." ??
Well?
Peter Webb
May 16, 2012, 3:46:06 AM5/16/12
to
"anorton" <ano...@removethis.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:Lqmdnf99FYb-2S7S...@earthlink.com...
You are making that bit up.
Why the need to lie?
> lying academics who are doing it just to keep their salaries. Perhaps no
> one told them that the fossil fuel industry would pay lavishly for valid
> evidence firmly against AGW. Infact it is amazing that control over this
> conspiracy is so good no such evidence has surfaced.
>
or of skeptics for that matter. You yourself admit that there is no evidence
at all of a conspiracy. Believing things in the absence of evidence seems to
be a characteristic of Believers
Meanwhile, returning to the the topic, you can see a list of 80 members of
the American Physical Society who disagreed with their statement that AGW
was real at
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2009/11/01/open-letter-council-american-physical-society
Is it your contention that every one of them is "is too stupid to understand
any science at all" ???
You can see a list of 49 retired NASA astronauts who are skeptical of AGW at
http://www.livescience.com/19643-nasa-astronauts-letter-global-warming.html
Is it your contention that every one of them is "is too stupid to understand
any science at all" ???
Well?
oriel36
May 16, 2012, 7:09:40 AM5/16/12
to
On May 16, 7:08 am, "anorton" <anor...@removethis.ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
> 20 years ago there was some valid academic debate. There is no longer any
> serious academic debate on the general validity of AGW. Of course you know
> that, but you chalk it up to a vast conspiracy of thousands of immoral,
> lying academics who are doing it just to keep their salaries.
More like petty thieves making a few dollars/euro and a reputation
from modeling agendas that have long since lost their validity.
It would be a major miracle to get the flow of information between
planetary dynamics and terrestrial sciences moving again and
specifically the interpretative insight where all the experiences
within a 24 hour day is caused by the Earth turning once in that day
and every day.
What a dreadful lucidity that is to encounter the modeling guys who
insist to the point of illness that the Earth doesn't turn once in a
day as it would offend the late 17th century clockwork solar system
models.The academics are not so much lying as engaging in groupthink
and I wish they were lying insofar as they would be aware of doing
wrong but the problem is their conviction which is derived from a
vicious strain of empiricism .Here are the words of a true scientist
sounding out a warning that actually became frighteningly real in the
last 30 years -
"This empiricism, the melancholy heritage transmitted to us from
former times, invariably contends for the truth of its axioms with the
arrogance of a narrowminded spirit.Physical philosophy, on the other
hand, when based upon science, doubts because it seeks to
investigate,distinguishes between that which is certain and that which
is merely probable, and strives incessantly to perfect theory by
extending the circle of observation."This assemblage of imperfect
dogmas bequeathed by one age to another— this physical philosophy,
which is composed of popular prejudices,—is not only injurious because
it perpetuates error with the obstinacy engendered by the evidence of
ill observed facts, but also because it hinders the mind from
attaining to higher views of nature. Instead of seeking to discover
the mean or medium point, around which oscillate,in apparent
independence of forces, all the phenomena of the external world, this
system delights in multiplying exceptions to the law, and seeks, amid
phenomena and in organic forms, for something beyond the marvel of a
regular succession, and an internal and progressive development. Ever
inclined to believe that the order of nature is disturbed, it refuses
to recognise in the present any analogy with the past, and guided by
its own varying hypotheses, seeks at hazard, either in the interior of
the globe or in the regions of space, for the cause of these pretended
perturbations. It is the special object
of the present work to combat those errors which derive their source
from a vicious empiricism and from imperfect inductions."
Homboldt ,Cosmos
It can be said that the quality of dissent is worse than the proposal
itself for the dissenters like Webb here make things worse and not
better,not offence to the man.
wrote:
> 20 years ago there was some valid academic debate. There is no longer any
> serious academic debate on the general validity of AGW. Of course you know
> that, but you chalk it up to a vast conspiracy of thousands of immoral,
> lying academics who are doing it just to keep their salaries.
from modeling agendas that have long since lost their validity.
It would be a major miracle to get the flow of information between
planetary dynamics and terrestrial sciences moving again and
specifically the interpretative insight where all the experiences
within a 24 hour day is caused by the Earth turning once in that day
and every day.
What a dreadful lucidity that is to encounter the modeling guys who
insist to the point of illness that the Earth doesn't turn once in a
day as it would offend the late 17th century clockwork solar system
models.The academics are not so much lying as engaging in groupthink
and I wish they were lying insofar as they would be aware of doing
wrong but the problem is their conviction which is derived from a
vicious strain of empiricism .Here are the words of a true scientist
sounding out a warning that actually became frighteningly real in the
last 30 years -
"This empiricism, the melancholy heritage transmitted to us from
former times, invariably contends for the truth of its axioms with the
arrogance of a narrowminded spirit.Physical philosophy, on the other
hand, when based upon science, doubts because it seeks to
investigate,distinguishes between that which is certain and that which
is merely probable, and strives incessantly to perfect theory by
extending the circle of observation."This assemblage of imperfect
dogmas bequeathed by one age to another— this physical philosophy,
which is composed of popular prejudices,—is not only injurious because
it perpetuates error with the obstinacy engendered by the evidence of
ill observed facts, but also because it hinders the mind from
attaining to higher views of nature. Instead of seeking to discover
the mean or medium point, around which oscillate,in apparent
independence of forces, all the phenomena of the external world, this
system delights in multiplying exceptions to the law, and seeks, amid
phenomena and in organic forms, for something beyond the marvel of a
regular succession, and an internal and progressive development. Ever
inclined to believe that the order of nature is disturbed, it refuses
to recognise in the present any analogy with the past, and guided by
its own varying hypotheses, seeks at hazard, either in the interior of
the globe or in the regions of space, for the cause of these pretended
perturbations. It is the special object
of the present work to combat those errors which derive their source
from a vicious empiricism and from imperfect inductions."
Homboldt ,Cosmos
It can be said that the quality of dissent is worse than the proposal
itself for the dissenters like Webb here make things worse and not
better,not offence to the man.
Chris L Peterson
May 16, 2012, 9:48:21 AM5/16/12
to
On Wed, 16 May 2012 17:32:43 +1000, "Peter Webb"
<r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>But returning to the topic, you didn't answer my question.
>
>You said:
>
>"Because anybody who believes AGW isn't real is too stupid to understand any
>science at all."
>
>I pointed out that Professor Ivan Giaver is a Nobel prize winning physicist
>who is skeptical about AGW being real.
>
>So, are you claiming that Prof Ivar Giaever is "too stupid to understand any
>science at all." ??
I think he is a bad scientist. He currently does not understand
<r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>But returning to the topic, you didn't answer my question.
>
>You said:
>
>"Because anybody who believes AGW isn't real is too stupid to understand any
>science at all."
>
>I pointed out that Professor Ivan Giaver is a Nobel prize winning physicist
>who is skeptical about AGW being real.
>
>So, are you claiming that Prof Ivar Giaever is "too stupid to understand any
>science at all." ??
science.
Perhaps he once did, but it isn't necessary to be a good scientist, or
to understand science, to win a Nobel Prize.
anorton
May 16, 2012, 11:28:20 AM5/16/12
to
news:jovm1n$kp0$1...@news.albasani.net...
Perhaps you personally have not claimed this, I am not going to spend hours
to search past usenet archives to verify. Certainly others who have argued
the same position here have said as much.
>
>
>> lying academics who are doing it just to keep their salaries. Perhaps no
>> one told them that the fossil fuel industry would pay lavishly for valid
>> evidence firmly against AGW. Infact it is amazing that control over this
>> conspiracy is so good no such evidence has surfaced.
>>
>
> You are a conspiracy nutter. There is no giant conspiracy of AGW
> Believers, or of skeptics for that matter. You yourself admit that there
> is no evidence at all of a conspiracy. Believing things in the absence of
> evidence seems to be a characteristic of Believers
>
> Meanwhile, returning to the the topic, you can see a list of 80 members of
> the American Physical Society who disagreed with their statement that AGW
> was real at
> http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2009/11/01/open-letter-council-american-physical-society
>
> Is it your contention that every one of them is "is too stupid to
> understand any science at all" ???
>
> You can see a list of 49 retired NASA astronauts who are skeptical of AGW
> at
> http://www.livescience.com/19643-nasa-astronauts-letter-global-warming.html
>
> Is it your contention that every one of them is "is too stupid to
> understand any science at all" ???
>
> Well?
>
If these folks profess to be expressing an expert scientific opinion, and
they do not publish their scientific opinions in a rigorous academic way, or
reference such a paper that fully encompasses their conclusions, then the
answer is, yes, they are not acting as good scientists.
It is notable how many of these signers are retired. One in eight older
people over age 65 (http://www.alz.org/downloads/facts_figures_2012.pdf)
already have Alzheimers and symptoms can progress over 20 years or more.
The signers of the APS letter represent just 0.17% of the APS membership.
This is just one of many reasons why a small percentage of people with good
reputations may hold irrational opinions or make unwise decisions.
to search past usenet archives to verify. Certainly others who have argued
the same position here have said as much.
>
>
>> lying academics who are doing it just to keep their salaries. Perhaps no
>> one told them that the fossil fuel industry would pay lavishly for valid
>> evidence firmly against AGW. Infact it is amazing that control over this
>> conspiracy is so good no such evidence has surfaced.
>>
>
> You are a conspiracy nutter. There is no giant conspiracy of AGW
> Believers, or of skeptics for that matter. You yourself admit that there
> is no evidence at all of a conspiracy. Believing things in the absence of
> evidence seems to be a characteristic of Believers
>
> Meanwhile, returning to the the topic, you can see a list of 80 members of
> the American Physical Society who disagreed with their statement that AGW
> was real at
> http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2009/11/01/open-letter-council-american-physical-society
>
> Is it your contention that every one of them is "is too stupid to
> understand any science at all" ???
>
> You can see a list of 49 retired NASA astronauts who are skeptical of AGW
> at
> http://www.livescience.com/19643-nasa-astronauts-letter-global-warming.html
>
> Is it your contention that every one of them is "is too stupid to
> understand any science at all" ???
>
> Well?
>
they do not publish their scientific opinions in a rigorous academic way, or
reference such a paper that fully encompasses their conclusions, then the
answer is, yes, they are not acting as good scientists.
It is notable how many of these signers are retired. One in eight older
people over age 65 (http://www.alz.org/downloads/facts_figures_2012.pdf)
already have Alzheimers and symptoms can progress over 20 years or more.
The signers of the APS letter represent just 0.17% of the APS membership.
This is just one of many reasons why a small percentage of people with good
reputations may hold irrational opinions or make unwise decisions.
oriel36
May 16, 2012, 2:38:10 PM5/16/12
to
On May 16, 4:28 pm, "anorton" <anor...@removethis.ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
> If these folks profess to be expressing an expert scientific opinion, and
> they do not publish their scientific opinions in a rigorous academic way, or
> reference such a paper that fully encompasses their conclusions, then the
> answer is, yes, they are not acting as good scientists.
>
Its the anti-competitive peer review process and you do not need to be
a rocket scientist to figure out why the retired guys object - nothing
to lose .
It works on the same principles as a moderated newsgroup as opposed to
the unmoderated Usenet,moderation serves to create not only a backdrop
for a consensus driven ideology but also controlled dissent in that
they allow objections that tend to bolster the central ideology.The
peer review process doesn't favor the proposer,it favors the reviewers
as their reputations and salaries rely on a steady stream of new
recruits and it requires no talent other than to spot when a paper
falls within the 'error bars' of a mainstream ideology,even one as
ridiculous as human control over the planet's temperature.
> It is notable how many of these signers are retired. One in eight older
> people over age 65 (http://www.alz.org/downloads/facts_figures_2012.pdf)
> already have Alzheimers and symptoms can progress over 20 years or more.
> The signers of the APS letter represent just 0.17% of the APS membership.
> This is just one of many reasons why a small percentage of people with good
> reputations may hold irrational opinions or make unwise decisions.
A society that lacks even the most basic flow of facts between
planetary dynamics and terrestrial effects is in huge trouble and the
human temperature control is a direct result of the lack of
interpretative astronomers as opposed to the abundance of speculative
modelers.It in not unwise decisions as most of these dissenters come
from the same body of empiricists,it is the inaction and indecision
when faced with historical and technical details which would be jaw-
dropping 500 years ago let alone today.
Something has to give.
wrote:
> If these folks profess to be expressing an expert scientific opinion, and
> they do not publish their scientific opinions in a rigorous academic way, or
> reference such a paper that fully encompasses their conclusions, then the
> answer is, yes, they are not acting as good scientists.
>
a rocket scientist to figure out why the retired guys object - nothing
to lose .
It works on the same principles as a moderated newsgroup as opposed to
the unmoderated Usenet,moderation serves to create not only a backdrop
for a consensus driven ideology but also controlled dissent in that
they allow objections that tend to bolster the central ideology.The
peer review process doesn't favor the proposer,it favors the reviewers
as their reputations and salaries rely on a steady stream of new
recruits and it requires no talent other than to spot when a paper
falls within the 'error bars' of a mainstream ideology,even one as
ridiculous as human control over the planet's temperature.
> It is notable how many of these signers are retired. One in eight older
> people over age 65 (http://www.alz.org/downloads/facts_figures_2012.pdf)
> already have Alzheimers and symptoms can progress over 20 years or more.
> The signers of the APS letter represent just 0.17% of the APS membership.
> This is just one of many reasons why a small percentage of people with good
> reputations may hold irrational opinions or make unwise decisions.
planetary dynamics and terrestrial effects is in huge trouble and the
human temperature control is a direct result of the lack of
interpretative astronomers as opposed to the abundance of speculative
modelers.It in not unwise decisions as most of these dissenters come
from the same body of empiricists,it is the inaction and indecision
when faced with historical and technical details which would be jaw-
dropping 500 years ago let alone today.
Something has to give.
Thad Floryan
May 16, 2012, 4:52:01 PM5/16/12
to
On 5/16/2012 6:48 AM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> [...] but it isn't necessary to be a good scientist, or
done nothing. The Nobel Prizes are worthless except for the
intrinsic value of the gold in the medal itself.
> [...] but it isn't necessary to be a good scientist, or
> to understand science, to win a Nobel Prize.
True. Obama was "awarded" the Nobel Peace Prize for having
done nothing. The Nobel Prizes are worthless except for the
intrinsic value of the gold in the medal itself.
Chris L Peterson
May 16, 2012, 5:57:36 PM5/16/12
to
On Wed, 16 May 2012 13:52:01 -0700, Thad Floryan <th...@thadlabs.com>
wrote:
>True. Obama was "awarded" the Nobel Peace Prize for having
>done nothing. The Nobel Prizes are worthless except for the
>intrinsic value of the gold in the medal itself.
They are certainly not worthless. They generally do reward very
significant scientific achievements (which are occasionally produced
by poor scientists). The Peace Prize is, necessarily, much more
political.
wrote:
>True. Obama was "awarded" the Nobel Peace Prize for having
>done nothing. The Nobel Prizes are worthless except for the
>intrinsic value of the gold in the medal itself.
significant scientific achievements (which are occasionally produced
by poor scientists). The Peace Prize is, necessarily, much more
political.
Peter Webb
May 16, 2012, 9:19:05 PM5/16/12
to
news:9ub7r793a4o9l9qvb...@4ax.com...
You can see a list of 80 members of the American Physical Society who
any science at all" ???
disagreed with their statement that AGW was real at
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2009/11/01/open-letter-council-american-physical-society
Is it your contention that every one of them is "is too stupid to understand
any science at all" ???
You can see a list of 49 retired NASA astronauts who are skeptical of AGW at
http://www.livescience.com/19643-nasa-astronauts-letter-global-warming.html
Is it your contention that every one of them is "is too stupid to understand
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2009/11/01/open-letter-council-american-physical-society
Is it your contention that every one of them is "is too stupid to understand
any science at all" ???
You can see a list of 49 retired NASA astronauts who are skeptical of AGW at
http://www.livescience.com/19643-nasa-astronauts-letter-global-warming.html
any science at all" ???
Peter Webb
May 16, 2012, 9:25:07 PM5/16/12
to
news:XvCdndDyZsg4Wi7S...@earthlink.com...
Ohhh, so you are accusing me of saying something on the basis of no evidence
whatsoever that I ever said it, and it is in fact its something I don't
believe to be true?
Why the need to invent a lie?
>>
>>
>>> lying academics who are doing it just to keep their salaries. Perhaps
>>> no one told them that the fossil fuel industry would pay lavishly for
>>> valid evidence firmly against AGW. Infact it is amazing that control
>>> over this conspiracy is so good no such evidence has surfaced.
>>>
>>
>> You are a conspiracy nutter. There is no giant conspiracy of AGW
>> Believers, or of skeptics for that matter. You yourself admit that there
>> is no evidence at all of a conspiracy. Believing things in the absence of
>> evidence seems to be a characteristic of Believers
>>
>> Meanwhile, returning to the the topic, you can see a list of 80 members
>> of the American Physical Society who disagreed with their statement that
>> AGW was real at
>> http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2009/11/01/open-letter-council-american-physical-society
>>
>> Is it your contention that every one of them is "is too stupid to
>> understand any science at all" ???
>>
>> You can see a list of 49 retired NASA astronauts who are skeptical of AGW
>> at
>> http://www.livescience.com/19643-nasa-astronauts-letter-global-warming.html
>>
>> Is it your contention that every one of them is "is too stupid to
>> understand any science at all" ???
>>
>> Well?
>>
>
> If these folks profess to be expressing an expert scientific opinion, and
> they do not publish their scientific opinions in a rigorous academic way,
> or reference such a paper that fully encompasses their conclusions, then
> the answer is, yes, they are not acting as good scientists.
That wasn't the question.
The question was: Is it your contention that every one of them is "is too
Why is that?
>
> It is notable how many of these signers are retired. One in eight older
> people over age 65 (http://www.alz.org/downloads/facts_figures_2012.pdf)
> already have Alzheimers and symptoms can progress over 20 years or more.
> The signers of the APS letter represent just 0.17% of the APS membership.
> This is just one of many reasons why a small percentage of people with
> good reputations may hold irrational opinions or make unwise decisions.
So, is it your contention that every one of them is "is too stupid to
whatsoever that I ever said it, and it is in fact its something I don't
believe to be true?
Why the need to invent a lie?
>>
>>
>>> lying academics who are doing it just to keep their salaries. Perhaps
>>> no one told them that the fossil fuel industry would pay lavishly for
>>> valid evidence firmly against AGW. Infact it is amazing that control
>>> over this conspiracy is so good no such evidence has surfaced.
>>>
>>
>> You are a conspiracy nutter. There is no giant conspiracy of AGW
>> Believers, or of skeptics for that matter. You yourself admit that there
>> is no evidence at all of a conspiracy. Believing things in the absence of
>> evidence seems to be a characteristic of Believers
>>
>> Meanwhile, returning to the the topic, you can see a list of 80 members
>> of the American Physical Society who disagreed with their statement that
>> AGW was real at
>> http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2009/11/01/open-letter-council-american-physical-society
>>
>> Is it your contention that every one of them is "is too stupid to
>> understand any science at all" ???
>>
>> You can see a list of 49 retired NASA astronauts who are skeptical of AGW
>> at
>> http://www.livescience.com/19643-nasa-astronauts-letter-global-warming.html
>>
>> Is it your contention that every one of them is "is too stupid to
>> understand any science at all" ???
>>
>> Well?
>>
>
> If these folks profess to be expressing an expert scientific opinion, and
> they do not publish their scientific opinions in a rigorous academic way,
> or reference such a paper that fully encompasses their conclusions, then
> the answer is, yes, they are not acting as good scientists.
The question was: Is it your contention that every one of them is "is too
stupid to understand any science at all" ???
So, you don't answer questions, but you do invent irrelevant lies.
Why is that?
>
> It is notable how many of these signers are retired. One in eight older
> people over age 65 (http://www.alz.org/downloads/facts_figures_2012.pdf)
> already have Alzheimers and symptoms can progress over 20 years or more.
> The signers of the APS letter represent just 0.17% of the APS membership.
> This is just one of many reasons why a small percentage of people with
> good reputations may hold irrational opinions or make unwise decisions.
anorton
May 16, 2012, 10:35:57 PM5/16/12
to
news:jp1k3d$b7h$1...@news.albasani.net...
In response to a previous post of mine you seemed not to understand the
concept of sarcasm. In this response, you seem not to understand the
concept and purpose of herperbole.
You are ridiculous. bye.
concept of sarcasm. In this response, you seem not to understand the
concept and purpose of herperbole.
You are ridiculous. bye.
wsne...@hotmail.com
May 16, 2012, 11:38:10 PM5/16/12
to
On May 16, 4:52 pm, Thad Floryan <t...@thadlabs.com> wrote:
> On 5/16/2012 6:48 AM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
> > [...] but it isn't necessary to be a good scientist, or
> > to understand science, to win a Nobel Prize.
>
> True. Obama was "awarded" the Nobel Peace Prize for having
> done nothing.
As was Owl Bore.
> On 5/16/2012 6:48 AM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
> > [...] but it isn't necessary to be a good scientist, or
> > to understand science, to win a Nobel Prize.
>
> True. Obama was "awarded" the Nobel Peace Prize for having
> done nothing.
> The Nobel Prizes are worthless except for the
> intrinsic value of the gold in the medal itself.
wsne...@hotmail.com
May 17, 2012, 12:02:07 AM5/17/12
to
On May 16, 2:08 am, "anorton" <anor...@removethis.ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
> "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
The industry would have no reason to do so, absent the hysteria and
hype. (20-foot sea level rise???)
The fossil fuel industry provides you with fossil fuels, no?
> Infact it is amazing that control over this
> conspiracy is so good no such evidence has surfaced.
The upcoming annular eclipse and the transit of Venus will give you
warmingistas a chance to demonstrate your concern for the planet.
Rather than travel to the center line or to places with good weather
prospects, you should stay home and watch these events on the Web, and
save some CO2 emissions.
wrote:
> "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:jov00s$ben$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> >news:s9m3r75f0i82ahv69...@4ax.com...
> news:jov00s$ben$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> >news:s9m3r75f0i82ahv69...@4ax.com...
hype. (20-foot sea level rise???)
The fossil fuel industry provides you with fossil fuels, no?
> Infact it is amazing that control over this
> conspiracy is so good no such evidence has surfaced.
warmingistas a chance to demonstrate your concern for the planet.
Rather than travel to the center line or to places with good weather
prospects, you should stay home and watch these events on the Web, and
save some CO2 emissions.
Chris L Peterson
May 17, 2012, 12:02:58 AM5/17/12
to
On Thu, 17 May 2012 11:19:05 +1000, "Peter Webb"
<r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You can see a list of 80 members of the American Physical Society who
>disagreed with their statement that AGW was real at
>http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2009/11/01/open-letter-council-american-physical-society
>
>Is it your contention that every one of them is "is too stupid to understand
>any science at all" ???
Currently, yes.
<r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You can see a list of 80 members of the American Physical Society who
>disagreed with their statement that AGW was real at
>http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2009/11/01/open-letter-council-american-physical-society
>
>Is it your contention that every one of them is "is too stupid to understand
>any science at all" ???
>You can see a list of 49 retired NASA astronauts who are skeptical of AGW at
>http://www.livescience.com/19643-nasa-astronauts-letter-global-warming.html
>
>Is it your contention that every one of them is "is too stupid to understand
>any science at all" ???
Peter Webb
May 17, 2012, 12:34:44 AM5/17/12
to
news:2didnXIVzpa1-SnS...@earthlink.com...
So you didn't like what I said in some other post?
>
> You are ridiculous. bye.
>
And so you think this is a reason to not answer questions in this post?
I doubt it. The reason you won't respond is that the claim is stupid and
indefensible, so you use some other post as an excuse to avoid looking
stupid by trying to defend the claim.
>
> You are ridiculous. bye.
>
And so you think this is a reason to not answer questions in this post?
I doubt it. The reason you won't respond is that the claim is stupid and
indefensible, so you use some other post as an excuse to avoid looking
stupid by trying to defend the claim.
Peter Webb
May 17, 2012, 12:45:07 AM5/17/12
to
news:72u8r712jaf6nlgbd...@4ax.com...
did he become Professor of Physics and Physical Oceanography, University of
North Carolina Wilmington?
OK, if Louis J. Allamandola is too stupid to understand any science at all,
how did he become Director, Astrochemistry Laboratory NASA Ames Research
Center?
OK, if Eva Andrei is too stupid to understand any science at all, how did
she become Professor of Physics, Rutgers University?
OK, if Robert H. Austin is too stupid to understand any science at all, how
did he become Professor of Physics, Princeton University?
OK, if Ami E. Berkowitz is too stupid to understand any science at all, how
did he become Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California at San
Diego?
OK, if Barry L. Berman is too stupid to understand any science at all, how
did he become Columbian Professor and Chair, Physics Department, The George
Washington University?
>>You can see a list of 49 retired NASA astronauts who are skeptical of AGW
>>at
>>http://www.livescience.com/19643-nasa-astronauts-letter-global-warming.html
>>
>>Is it your contention that every one of them is "is too stupid to
>>understand
>>any science at all" ???
>
> Currently, yes.
Have you any evidence of this whatsoever? (Apart from entirely circular
arguments).
Or are you just making up lies, *again* ?
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 11:19:05 +1000, "Peter Webb"
> <r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You can see a list of 80 members of the American Physical Society who
>>disagreed with their statement that AGW was real at
>>http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2009/11/01/open-letter-council-american-physical-society
>>
>>Is it your contention that every one of them is "is too stupid to
>>understand
>>any science at all" ???
>
> Currently, yes.
>
OK, if Moorad Alexanian is too stupid to understand any science at all, how
> <r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You can see a list of 80 members of the American Physical Society who
>>disagreed with their statement that AGW was real at
>>http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2009/11/01/open-letter-council-american-physical-society
>>
>>Is it your contention that every one of them is "is too stupid to
>>understand
>>any science at all" ???
>
> Currently, yes.
>
did he become Professor of Physics and Physical Oceanography, University of
North Carolina Wilmington?
OK, if Louis J. Allamandola is too stupid to understand any science at all,
how did he become Director, Astrochemistry Laboratory NASA Ames Research
Center?
OK, if Eva Andrei is too stupid to understand any science at all, how did
she become Professor of Physics, Rutgers University?
OK, if Robert H. Austin is too stupid to understand any science at all, how
did he become Professor of Physics, Princeton University?
OK, if Ami E. Berkowitz is too stupid to understand any science at all, how
did he become Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California at San
Diego?
OK, if Barry L. Berman is too stupid to understand any science at all, how
did he become Columbian Professor and Chair, Physics Department, The George
Washington University?
>>You can see a list of 49 retired NASA astronauts who are skeptical of AGW
>>at
>>http://www.livescience.com/19643-nasa-astronauts-letter-global-warming.html
>>
>>Is it your contention that every one of them is "is too stupid to
>>understand
>>any science at all" ???
>
> Currently, yes.
arguments).
Or are you just making up lies, *again* ?
Chris L Peterson
May 17, 2012, 1:00:26 AM5/17/12
to
On Thu, 17 May 2012 14:45:07 +1000, "Peter Webb"
<r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>OK, if Moorad Alexanian is too stupid to understand any science at all, how
>did he become Professor of Physics and Physical Oceanography, University of
>North Carolina Wilmington? ...
<r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>OK, if Moorad Alexanian is too stupid to understand any science at all, how
>did he become Professor of Physics and Physical Oceanography, University of
There are plenty of bad scientists in important positions. And being a
bad scientist doesn't necessarily stop a person from doing good work
in a narrow area.
The bottom line is that AGW is a fact. It is settled. There is no
debate in the scientific community. There are no grounds to deny its
existence, so such denial marks a person as either ignorant or
scientifically illiterate.
oriel36
May 17, 2012, 1:52:28 AM5/17/12
to
On May 17, 6:00 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 14:45:07 +1000, "Peter Webb"
>
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 14:45:07 +1000, "Peter Webb"
>
it is no longer a theory,there are no doubts, contradictions and it
explains every possible weather event from floods to
droughts,heatwaves to cold snaps.
Peter Webb
May 17, 2012, 1:57:43 AM5/17/12
to
news:ka19r7p49qr1ggq3e...@4ax.com...
Wow.
Not only won't you answer my question, you snipped it as well.
You have claimed that anybody who doesn't believe in AGW is "is too stupid
to understand any science at all".
I then provided (as a start) a list of current Professors of Physics at
prestigious Universities who don't believe in AGW. I then asked for your
evidence that these people are "too stupid to understand any science at
all", when in fact they hold senior scientific positions.
Why haven't you provided the evidence to back up your claim that all these
people are "too stupid to understand any science at all" ??? What about (to
pick a random example) Robert H. Austin, how does he do his job of being a
Professor of Physics at Princeton if he is "is too stupid to understand any
science at all" ? Newton's laws of motion are science, are you claiming that
a Professor of Physics at Princeton University doesn't understand Newton's
laws of motion? Why haven't you provided evidence of your claim?
Because its bullshit, and you lied again?
And why the constant need to lie?
Not only won't you answer my question, you snipped it as well.
You have claimed that anybody who doesn't believe in AGW is "is too stupid
to understand any science at all".
I then provided (as a start) a list of current Professors of Physics at
prestigious Universities who don't believe in AGW. I then asked for your
evidence that these people are "too stupid to understand any science at
all", when in fact they hold senior scientific positions.
Why haven't you provided the evidence to back up your claim that all these
people are "too stupid to understand any science at all" ??? What about (to
pick a random example) Robert H. Austin, how does he do his job of being a
Professor of Physics at Princeton if he is "is too stupid to understand any
science at all" ? Newton's laws of motion are science, are you claiming that
a Professor of Physics at Princeton University doesn't understand Newton's
laws of motion? Why haven't you provided evidence of your claim?
Because its bullshit, and you lied again?
And why the constant need to lie?
Chris L Peterson
May 17, 2012, 9:32:01 AM5/17/12
to
On Thu, 17 May 2012 15:57:43 +1000, "Peter Webb"
<r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
<nothing of value>
Sorry, you're simply too stupid to engage in this discussion. I'm not
going to waste my time with you.
<r.peter...@gmail.com> wrote:
<nothing of value>
Sorry, you're simply too stupid to engage in this discussion. I'm not
going to waste my time with you.
oriel36
May 17, 2012, 8:52:51 AM5/17/12
to
On May 17, 6:57 am, "Peter Webb" <r.peter.webb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why haven't you provided the evidence to back up your claim that all these
> people are "too stupid to understand any science at all" ??? What about (to
> pick a random example) Robert H. Austin, how does he do his job of being a
> Professor of Physics at Princeton if he is "is too stupid to understand any
> science at all" ? Newton's laws of motion are science, are you claiming that
> a Professor of Physics at Princeton University doesn't understand Newton's
> laws of motion? Why haven't you provided evidence of your claim?
>
There is nothing like empirical drones.The best guys freely admit they
> Why haven't you provided the evidence to back up your claim that all these
> people are "too stupid to understand any science at all" ??? What about (to
> pick a random example) Robert H. Austin, how does he do his job of being a
> Professor of Physics at Princeton if he is "is too stupid to understand any
> science at all" ? Newton's laws of motion are science, are you claiming that
> a Professor of Physics at Princeton University doesn't understand Newton's
> laws of motion? Why haven't you provided evidence of your claim?
>
hadn't a clue how Newton got from the behavior of objects launched in
the air to the behavior of the moon and planets around the Sun -
"The demonstrations throughout the book [Principia] are geometrical,
but to readers of ordinary ability are rendered unnecessarily
difficult by the absence of illustrations and explanations, and by the
fact that no clue is given to the method by which Newton arrived at
his results. The reason why it was presented in a geometrical form
appears to have been that the infinitesimal calculus was then unknown,
and, had Newton used it to demonstrate results which were in
themselves opposed to the prevalent philosophy of the time, the
controversy as to the truth of his results would have been hampered by
a dispute concerning the validity of the methods used in proving them.
" Rouse Ball 1908
I wish some intelligent person would read the letter of Wallis to
Boyle,a letter written 20 years before the Principia -
http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/1/1-22/263.full.pdf+html
Newton became and still is a symbol for groupthink and specifically
the idea that you can justify stellar circumpolar motion by modeling
the daily and orbital dynamics of the Earth using watches just as
today they try to model terrestrial sciences using computers.It
happens to be the worst form of intellectual vandalism, intended or
unintended ,the world has ever seen and because it became
established,it give rise to people who have no respect for
astronomy,no respect for terrestrial sciences nor respect for the flow
of information between the two disciplines.
Peter Webb
May 17, 2012, 9:40:06 PM5/17/12
to
news:5cv9r7lem0hhho372...@4ax.com...
So, you have no answers to my questions.
Run away, little crank.
Run away, little crank.
bjacoby
May 30, 2012, 5:58:59 PM5/30/12
to
stupid to understand any science at all".
QED.
0 new messages