The original denier: into the cold
Last Post
Most scientists who are labelled as "deniers" for their views on
global warming don't embrace this role. They cringe at the thought of
disagreeing with colleagues who think that the science is settled,
they do their best to avoid making waves, and they fear being
marginalized as cranks who disagree with the scientific consensus. Dr.
Richard Lindzen is an exception.
Most scientists who are labelled as "deniers" for their views on
global warming don't embrace this role. They cringe at the thought of
disagreeing with colleagues who think that the science is settled,
they do their best to avoid making waves, and they fear being
marginalized as cranks who disagree with the scientific consensus. Dr.
Richard Lindzen is an exception.
Dr. Lindzen is one of the original deniers -- among the first to
criticize the scientific bureaucracy, and scientists themselves, for
claims about global warming that he views as unfounded and alarmist.
While he does not welcome the role he's acquired, he also does not
shrink from it. Dr. Lindzen takes his protests about the abuse of
science to the public, to the press, and to government.
His detractors can't dismiss him as a crank from the fringe, however,
much as they might wish. Dr. Lindzen is a critic from within, one of
the most distinguished climate scientists in the world: a past
professor at the University of Chicago and Harvard, the Alfred P.
Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and a lead
author in a landmark report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, the very organization that established global
warming as an issue of paramount importance.
Dr. Lindzen is proud of his contribution, and that of his colleagues,
to the IPCC chapter they worked on. His pride in this work matches his
dismay at seeing it misrepresented. "[Almost all reading and coverage
of the IPCC is restricted to the highly publicized Summaries for
Policymakers which are written by representatives from governments,
NGOs and business; the full reports, written by participating
scientists, are largely ignored," he told the United States Senate
committee on environment and public works in 2001. These unscientific
summaries, often written to further political or business agendas,
then become the basis of public understanding.
As an example, Dr. Lindzen provided the committee with the summary
that was created for Chapter 7, which he worked on. "Understanding of
climate processes and their incorporation in climate models have
improved, including water vapour, sea-ice dynamics, and ocean heat
transport," the summary stated, creating the impression that the
climate models were reliable. The actual report by the scientists
indicated just the opposite. Dr. Lindzen testified that the scientists
had "found numerous problems with model treatments -- including those
of clouds and water vapor."
When the IPCC was stung by criticism that the summaries were being
written with little or no input by the scientists themselves, the IPCC
had a subset of the scientists review a subsequent draft summary -- an
improvement in the process. Except that the final version, when later
released at a Shanghai press conference, had surprising changes to the
draft that scientists had seen.
The version that emerged from Shanghai concludes, "In the light of new
evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of
the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due
to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations." Yet the draft was
rife with qualifiers making it clear the science was very much in
doubt because "the accuracy of these estimates continues to be limited
by uncertainties in estimates of internal variability, natural and
anthropogenic forcing, and the climate response to external forcing."
The summaries' distortion of the IPCC chapters compounds another
distortion that occurred in the very writing of the scientific
chapters themselves. Dr. Lindzen's description of the conditions under
which the climate scientists worked conjures up a scene worthy of a
totalitarian state: "throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC
'coordinators' would go around insisting that criticism of models be
toned down, and that 'motherhood' statements be inserted to the effect
that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals
were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed
coauthors forced to assert their 'green' credentials in defense of
their statements."
To better understand the issue of climate change, including the
controversies over the IPCC summary documents, the White House asked
the National Academy of Sciences, the country's premier scientific
organization, to assemble a panel on climate change. The 11 members of
the panel, which included Richard Lindzen, concluded that the science
is far from settled: "Because there is considerable uncertainty in
current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and
reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current
estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as
tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or
downward)."
The press's spin on the NAS report? CNN, in language typical of other
reportage, stated that it represented "a unanimous decision that
global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is
no wiggle room."
Despite such obtuseness Lindzen fights on, defending the science at
what is undoubtedly a very considerable personal cost. Those who toe
the party line are publicly praised and have grants ladled out to them
from a funding pot that overflows with US$1.7-billion per year in the
U.S. alone. As Lindzen wrote earlier this year in The Wall Street
Journal, "there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy.
Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds
disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry
stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate
change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science
that supposedly is their basis."
Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute
and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research
Foundation. Email: Lawrence Sol...@nextcity.com.
CV OF A DENIER:
Richard Lindzen received his PhD in applied mathematics in 1964 from
Harvard University. A professor of meteorology in the Department of
Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, he is a member of the National Academy of
Sciences, a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, and a member of the National Research Council Board on
Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. He is also a consultant to the
Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight
Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute
of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Prof. Lindzen is a
recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's
Macelwane Medal. He is author or coauthor of over 200 scholarly papers
and books.
© (c) CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc.
z
>
> CV OF A DENIER:
>
> Richard Lindzen received his PhD in applied mathematics in 1964 from
> Harvard University. A professor of meteorology in the Department of
> Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts
> Institute of Technology, he is a member of the National Academy of
> Sciences, a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of
> Science, and a member of the National Research Council Board on
> Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. He is also a consultant to the
> Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight
> Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute
> of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Prof. Lindzen is a
> recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's
> Macelwane Medal. He is author or coauthor of over 200 scholarly papers
> and books.
>
> © (c) CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc.
you know that lindzen believes that global warming exists and that a
good chunk of it is anthropogenic, right? but where the IPCC says
"most" lindzen says "no more than 1/3". http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf
so in your book, that puts him in the same camp as those who say "the
earth is cooling" and "there is no such thing as anthropogenic global
warming" and "there is no mechanism by which carbon dioxide can cause
global warming" and "it's a plot invented by liberals"?
leona...@gmail.com
•• That does not say that global warming really
exists. I have in my file an article written by Dr
Lindzen that I posts a few years back that says
otherwise.
> so in your book, that puts him in the same camp as those who say "the
> earth is cooling"
•• which it is.
> and "there is no such thing as anthropogenic global
> warming"
•• Anthropogenic global warming is an hoax
> "there is no mechanism by which carbon dioxide can cause
> global warming"
•• Since CO2 is essentially a coolant, and 95+% of
it is absorbed by photosynthetic organisms which
convert around 100,000,000,000 tonnes of carbon
into biomass per year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
> "it's a plot invented by liberals"?
•• What else would you call Gore, if not a liberal
fascist profiteer?
- -
"Global warming is a false myth and every serious
person and scientist says so. IPCC is not a
scientific institution; it's a political body, a sort of
non-government organization of green flavour."
"Other top-level politicians do not express their
global warming doubts because a whip of political
correctness strangles their voice."
* Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic.
Benj
> CV OF A DENIER:
>
> Richard Lindzen received his PhD in applied mathematics in 1964 from
> Harvard University. A professor of meteorology in the Department of
> Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts
> Institute of Technology, he is a member of the National Academy of
> Sciences, a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of
> Science, and a member of the National Research Council Board on
> Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. He is also a consultant to the
> Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight
> Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute
> of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Prof. Lindzen is a
> recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's
> Macelwane Medal. He is author or coauthor of over 200 scholarly papers
> and books.
>
> © (c) CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc.
Dr. Lindzen, is obviously a kook, a crank, a good professor gone bad,
a denier and in general a buffoon who is insane. Obviously he is
nothing but a buffoon who has nothing of value to say on the subject
of the dangers to the planet created by AGW. The FACT that CO2 causes
global warming has been established beyond doubt by the IPCC and the
EPA. There is no doubt about it. Anyone who says otherwise is a loon.
Anyone who questions these facts is a denier. You can take these facts
to the bank.
"signed"
anonymous poster...
leona...@gmail.com
> On Jul 4, 12:06 pm, Last Post <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > CV OF A DENIER:
>
> > Richard Lindzen received his PhD in applied mathematics in 1964 from
> > Harvard University. A professor of meteorology in the Department of
> > Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts
> > Institute of Technology, he is a member of the National Academy of
> > Sciences, a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of
> > Science, and a member of the National Research Council Board on
> > Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. He is also a consultant to the
> > Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight
> > Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute
> > of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Prof. Lindzen is a
> > recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's
> > Macelwane Medal. He is author or coauthor of over 200 scholarly papers
> > and books.
>
> > © (c) CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc.
•• Benjie is a braying jackass.
– –
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk into behaving well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1-The stupid aren't smart enough to
follow the logic of what you say. You
have to tell them what is right in very
simple terms. If they don't agree, then
you'll never be able to change their mind.
2- the religious fanatic
If what you say goes against their
religious belief, they will cling to that
religious belief even if it means their
death."
3- There is no way to reform evil-
Not in a million years
There is no way to convince the terrorists,
anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
serial killers, paedophiles, and predators
to change their evil ways. They knew what
they were doing was wrong, but that
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil acts.
leona...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > CV OF A DENIER:
>
> > Richard Lindzen received his PhD in applied mathematics in 1964 from
> > Harvard University. A professor of meteorology in the Department of
> > Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts
> > Institute of Technology, he is a member of the National Academy of
> > Sciences, a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of
> > Science, and a member of the National Research Council Board on
> > Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. He is also a consultant to the
> > Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight
> > Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute
> > of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Prof. Lindzen is a
> > recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's
> > Macelwane Medal. He is author or coauthor of over 200 scholarly papers
> > and books.
>
> > © (c) CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc.
>
> Dr. Lindzen, is obviously a kook, a crank, a good professor gone bad,
> a denier and in general a buffoon who is insane. Obviously he is
> nothing but a buffoon who has nothing of value to say on the subject
> of the dangers to the planet created by AGW. The FACT that CO2 causes
> global warming has been established beyond doubt by the IPCC and the
> EPA.
•• In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena. Since you are so smart why
don't you provide us with some proof of your
own?
There is no doubt about it. Anyone who says otherwise is a loon.
> Anyone who questions these facts is a denier. You can take these facts
> to the bank.
•• Poor Benjie~~ he's insane!
Eric Gisin
You are not a scientist, for they must be skeptics. Greens are "true believers".
If you wish to prove me wrong, find fault with Lindzen's latest talk:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/02/lindzens-climate-sensitivty-talk-iccc-june-2-2009/
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/richard-lindzen-3.ppt
For extra points, tells us why Lindzen is not a denier.
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:afa6fbea-e9d0-4faf...@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Bret Cahill
> Most scientists who are labelled as "deniers" for their views on
> global warming don't embrace this role.
But, hey, they need the money.
As long as the carbon industry pays them to scribble utter nonsense
the corp. 'hos will be scribbling utter nonsense.
Bret Cahill
Eric Gisin
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:0ae12631-bcf8-4a8b...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
z
wrote:
> > you know that lindzen believes that global warming exists and that a
> > good chunk of it is anthropogenic, right? but where the IPCC says
> > "most" lindzen says "no more than 1/3".
>
> •• That does not say that global warming really
> exists. I have in my file an article written by Dr
> Lindzen that I posts a few years back that says
> otherwise.
Maybe you should read what he wrote in 2007 that I referenced:
> http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf
"Using basic theory, modeling results and observations, we can
reasonably bound the anthropogenic contributions to surface warming
since 1979 to a third of the observed warming,"
Bret Cahill
>
> >> Most scientists who are labelled as "deniers" for their views on
> >> global warming don't embrace this role.
>
> > But, hey, they need the money.
>
> > As long as the carbon industry pays them to scribble utter nonsense
> > the corp. 'hos will be scribbling utter nonsense.
No response?
Bret Cahill
Jeffrey Turner
> Nope, you are the insane crank who believes the most absurd enviro claims.
> You are not a scientist, for they must be skeptics. Greens are "true
> believers".
The question is no longer whether global warming is upon us � but how we
can rise to its challenge.
http://globalchange.mit.edu/index.html
--
The comfort of the wealthy has always
depended upon an abundant supply of
the poor. --Voltaire
Last Post
> Eric Gisin wrote:
> > Nope, you are the insane crank who believes the most absurd enviro claims.
> > You are not a scientist, for they must be skeptics. Greens are "true
> > believers".
>
3 alarmist jackasses in search of a clue
–– ––
[IPCC report] "This report is not what it
appears to be - it is not the version that
was approved by the contributing
scientists listed on the title page."
Fredrik Seitz
Last Post
I had a bunch of cousins named Zucker.
I last saw any of them was at my
grandmother's funeral 45 years ago.
> On Jul 5, 7:27 am, "leonard7...@gmail.com" <leonard7...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > you know that lindzen believes that global warming exists and that a
> > > good chunk of it is anthropogenic, right? but where the IPCC says
> > > "most" lindzen says "no more than 1/3".
>
> > •• That does not say that global warming really
> > exists. I have in my file an article written by Dr
> > Lindzen that I posts a few years back that says
> > otherwise.
RICHARD LINDZEN
www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
Climate of Fear:
Global-warming alarmists intimidate
dissenting scientists into silence.
BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
There have been repeated claims that this past
year's hurricane activity was another sign of
human-induced climate change. Everything
from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in
Buffalo has been blamed on people burning
gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural
gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet
how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase
in the recorded global mean temperature since the
late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance
as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And
how can it translate into unlikely claims about future
catastrophes?
The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the
science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate
science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific
statements about climate are
hyped_by_those_with_a_vested_interest_in_alarm,
thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who
provide funds for more science research to feed more
alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts
money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or
climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed,
the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the
increased federal spending on climate research from a
few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today.
It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar,
wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as
well as on other energy-investment decisions.
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy.
Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen
their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and
themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks
or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change
gain credence even when they fly in the face of the
science that supposedly is their basis.
To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about
climate science and the climate of intimidation, one
needs to grasp some of the complex underlying
scientific issues. First, let's start where there is
agreement. The public, press and policy makers have
been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread
scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a
degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the
atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the
same period; and CO2 should contribute to future
warming. These claims are true. However, what the
public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute
support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for
the small amount of warming that has occurred. In
fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of
alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the
very science they say supports them. It isn't just that
the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we
know must be wrong.
If the models are correct, global warming reduces the
temperature differences between the poles and the
equator. When you have less difference in temperature,
you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not
more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion.
Alarmists have drawn some support for increased
claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by
Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world
would have more evaporation, with latent heat
providing more energy for disturbances. The problem
with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive
tropical storms relies not only on temperature
but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid
air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based
upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a
case for more storminess with global warming.
So how is it that we don't have more scientists
speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief
that many scientists have been cowed not merely by
money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas
Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist
Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the
details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed
the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998
the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's
concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had
singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage
policy makers to take action. And they did so before
his work could be replicated and tested--a task made
difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had
refused to release the details for analysis. The
scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was,
nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of
the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the
American Meteorological Society and the American
Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that
Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked
of intimidation.
All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the
scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the
crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two
congressional hearings during which he tried to bully
dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our
views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the
scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice
president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to
discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr.
Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were
mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross
Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with
Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil- fuel industry.
Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg.
In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as
research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological
Society after questioning the scientific
underpinnings of global warming. Aksel
Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World
Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert
Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal
industry for questioning climate alarmism.
Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and
Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in
1991, apparently losing climate-research funding
for raising questions.
And then there are the peculiar standards in place in
scientific journals for articles submitted by those who
raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At
Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused
without review as being without interest. However, even
when such papers are published, standards shift. When
I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to
determine how clouds behave under varying
temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris
Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with
increased temperature, providing a very strong negative
climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response
to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears
in the form of letters to the journal to which the original
authors can respond immediately. However, in this case
(and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared,
claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed
months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be
commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a
strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really
behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National
Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our
knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research
Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of
the warming--not whether it would actually happen.
Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears,
is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most
senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist
gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists,
advocates and policymakers.
--==0==--
Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric
Science at MIT.
Copyright © Dow Jones & Company, Inc
Eric Gisin
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:e643be4f-fea7-4ace...@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Jeffrey Turner
> You fucking asshole. The X-refs shows you replied to my post, but you
> ommitted my reply.
It's not his fault you're an idiot top poster.
--Jeff
Bret Cahill
Try not to spree but if you do spree, try to spree local.
Just shoot up the trailer park.
Bret Cahill
Eric Gisin
"Jeffrey Turner" <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:PO6dndKAnYztfM_X...@posted.localnet...
Bret Cahill
. . .
> > >but you ommitted my reply.
You need to make up your silly mind. Are there rules or not?
> > It's not his fault you're an idiot top poster.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
Your "reply" was nothing more than a lot of rightard flaming.
> >> >> The original denier: into the cold
>
> >> >> Most scientists who are labelled as "deniers" for their views on
> >> >> global warming don't embrace this role.
>
> >> > But, hey, they need the money.
>
> >> > As long as the carbon industry pays them to scribble utter nonsense
> >> > the corp. 'hos will be scribbling utter nonsense.
>
> > No response?
No response?
Bret Cahill
Eric Gisin
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:b11ed2e3-a05b-49be...@d15g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
Eric Gisin
or I will make your pathetic life on usenet fucking hell.
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:d4f39b2d-e11b-4a97...@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Last Post
> Look here you deranged little psychopath, stop provoking people
> or I will make your pathetic life on usenet fucking hell.
•• Tut tut tut!! It seems you have not the first clue of posting
> "Bret Cahill" <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d4f39b2d-e11b-4a97...@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> You "posting nazis" are the most psychotic of the bunch. There are no rules!
•• ROTFLMAO
Such stupidity from an idiot top poster
>
> > You need to make up your silly mind. Are there rules or not?
•• Of course there are rules. Where were you 20
years ago when usenet was formed?
Most of the rules were simple common sense,
like posting under the text to which you refer.
Idiot top posters ignore that rule demonstrating
their stupidity.
> >> > It's not his fault you're an idiot top poster.
–– ––
Much of the scientific community today has lost its
focus. It has accepted things like evolution as fact,
without room for questioning. When an unproven
theory becomes the foundation of much of our
sciences, accepting its unproven tenets without
question and ignoring anything that doesn't fit the
theory, then the whole thing becomes a house of
cards. What's worse is that we are training our
researchers not to question."
In schools, anyone who questions anything within
the current accepted standards, is ridiculed and
made to feel stupid. By the time the person
graduates, he or she has learned to just accept
the 'theory de jour' as fact. It's even worse when
the only proof that can be offered is based on
circular reasoning."
"As a result of all this, we do very little pure
research anymore. At least, when compared
to the past. Too much of our research is
designed to prove a theory, not to just
investigate to see what is really happening.
It is my belief that people like Da Vinci would
roll over in their graves if they saw the sorry state
of scientific research today. The original idea of
what they called the scientific method was to try
to prove a theory to be incorrect, modifying said
theory as they learned more. When they could
no longer find an exception, then it became a
scientific law."
Michael Coburn
> On Jul 9, 11:22 am, "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote:
>> Look here you deranged little psychopath, stop provoking people
>> or I will make your pathetic life on usenet fucking hell.
>
> •• Tut tut tut!! It seems you have not the first clue of posting
>
>> "Bret Cahill" <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:d4f39b2d-e11b-4a97-
b5e1-9d5...@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> You "posting nazis" are the most psychotic of the bunch. There are
>> >> no rules!
>
> •• ROTFLMAO
> Such stupidity from an idiot top poster
>>
>> > You need to make up your silly mind. Are there rules or not?
>
> •• Of course there are rules. Where were you 20
> years ago when usenet was formed?
>
> Most of the rules were simple common sense, like posting under the
> text to which you refer. Idiot top posters ignore that rule
> demonstrating their stupidity.
>
>> >> > It's not his fault you're an idiot top poster.
>
> –– ––
> Much of the scientific community today has lost its focus. It has
> accepted things like evolution as fact, without room for questioning.
> When an unproven theory becomes the foundation of much of our sciences,
> accepting its unproven tenets without question and ignoring anything
> that doesn't fit the theory, then the whole thing becomes a house of
> cards. What's worse is that we are training our researchers not to
> question."
The unquestioning faith in supposed authority is the hallmark of the
rightarded. There is a lot less evidence for creationism than there is
for evolution.
> In schools, anyone who questions anything within the current accepted
> standards, is ridiculed and made to feel stupid. By the time the person
> graduates, he or she has learned to just accept the 'theory de jour' as
> fact. It's even worse when the only proof that can be offered is based
> on circular reasoning."
There is no "proof" for creationism.
> "As a result of all this, we do very little pure research anymore. At
> least, when compared to the past. Too much of our research is designed
> to prove a theory, not to just investigate to see what is really
> happening.
Yes.. Like tobacco companies and oil companies and medical insurance
companies.
> It is my belief that people like Da Vinci would roll over in
> their graves if they saw the sorry state of scientific research today.
> The original idea of what they called the scientific method was to try
> to prove a theory to be incorrect, modifying said theory as they learned
> more. When they could no longer find an exception, then it became a
> scientific law."
That may well be. But among competing theories, the one that sports the
most correlation with known reality should be the "accepted theory".
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Bret Cahill
> or I will make your pathetic life on usenet fucking hell.
I'm so skeered I'm hiding under the bed quaking in my boots.
Fortunately I cut holes in the toes of my boots so I can still type &
post messages.
Bret Cahill
> "Bret Cahill" <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
Last Post
Rob Dekker
"Last Post" <last...@primus.ca> wrote in message
news:f4c1283c-d86e-47d7-9944-
> Much of the scientific community today has lost its
> focus. It has accepted things like evolution as fact,
> without room for questioning. When an unproven
> theory becomes the foundation of much of our
> sciences, accepting its unproven tenets without
> question and ignoring anything that doesn't fit the
> theory, then the whole thing becomes a house of
> cards. What's worse is that we are training our
> researchers not to question."
>
I do not know what was in you educational past, and what they thought you.
But in science, there is no such think as a dumb question.
Maybe you should change your posting style to asking (dumb) questions
instead of making (dumb) statements.
> In schools, anyone who questions anything within
> the current accepted standards, is ridiculed and
> made to feel stupid.
Is that what they did to you ?
Also, "made to feel" is a statement of insecurity. Nobody makes anybody
feel. Your feelings are your own, and you make them yourself.
> By the time the person
> graduates, he or she has learned to just accept
> the 'theory de jour' as fact. It's even worse when
> the only proof that can be offered is based on
> circular reasoning."
>
Maybe then it's time to get some reasoning straightened out.
> "As a result of all this, we do very little pure
> research anymore. At least, when compared
> to the past.
When was that ? When was science ever practiced without dogmatic thinker
trying everything possible to discredit valid scientific research ?
> Too much of our research is
> designed to prove a theory, not to just
> investigate to see what is really happening.
> It is my belief that people like Da Vinci would
> roll over in their graves if they saw the sorry state
> of scientific research today.
I think Da Vinci would have loved to live in this era, and would be
delighted to see how much pogress has been made in scientific understanding
of the basic laws that govern the universe, as well as the immense progress
in technology and communication and even art, that this understanding has
resulted in.
> The original idea of
> what they called the scientific method was to try
> to prove a theory to be incorrect, modifying said
> theory as they learned more. When they could
> no longer find an exception, then it became a
> scientific law."
And so it still stands. Find an prove an exception to a scientific law, and
scientists will go back to the drawing board.
Rob
Last Post
> "Last Post" <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote in message
Will he ever get it straight? ~~ Somehow I doubt it.
–– ––
Codd
> You "posting nazis" are the most psychotic of the bunch. There are no rules!
>