Lies, lies and more lies.
Nashton
magazine Science that CO2's contribution to AGW is significantly less
than we thought and that managing AGW would be a little easier than was
once thought, now this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html
---------------Begin quote
"The picture that emerges of prominent climate-change scientists from
the more than 3,000 documents and emails accessed by hackers and put on
the Internet this week is one of professional backbiting and
questionable scientific practices. It could undermine the idea that the
science of man-made global warming is entirely settled just weeks before
a crucial climate-change summit.
Researchers at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East
Anglia, England, were victims of a cyberattack by hackers sometime
Thursday. A collection of emails dating back to the mid-1990s as well as
scientific documents were splashed across the Internet. University
officials confirmed the hacker attack, but couldn't immediately confirm
the authenticity of all the documents posted on the Internet.
The publicly posted material includes years of correspondence among
leading climate researchers, most of whom participate in the preparation
of climate-change reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, the authoritative summaries of global climate science that
influence policy makers around the world.
The release of the documents comes just weeks before a big
climate-change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, meant to lay the
groundwork for a new global treaty to curb greenhouse-gas emissions and
fight climate change. Momentum for an agreement has been undermined by
the economic slump, which has put environmental issues on the back
burner in most countries, and by a 10-year cooling trend in global
temperatures that runs contrary to many of the dire predictions in
climate models such as the IPCC's.
A partial review of the emails shows that in many cases, climate
scientists revealed that their own research wasn't always conclusive. In
others, they discussed ways to paper over differences among themselves
in order to present a "unified" view on climate change. On at least one
occasion, climate scientists were asked to "beef up" conclusions about
climate change and extreme weather events because environmental
officials in one country were planning a "big public splash."
The release of the documents has given ammunition to many skeptics of
man-made global warming, who for years have argued that the scientific
"consensus" was less robust than the official IPCC summaries indicated
and that climate researchers systematically ostracized other scientists
who presented findings that differed from orthodox views.
Since the hacking, many Web sites catering to climate skeptics have
pored over the material and concluded that it shows a concerted effort
to distort climate science. Other Web sites catering to climate
scientists have dismissed those claims.
The tension between those two camps is apparent in the emails. More
recent messages showed climate scientists were increasingly concerned
about blog postings and articles on leading skeptical Web sites. Much of
the internal discussion over scientific papers centered on how to
pre-empt attacks from prominent skeptics, for example.
Fellow scientists who disagreed with orthodox views on climate change
were variously referred to as "prats" and "utter prats." In other
exchanges, one climate researcher said he was "very tempted" to "beat
the crap out of" a prominent, skeptical U.S. climate scientist.
In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to arrange
for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in scientific
journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times appeared to
pressure scientific journals not to publish research by other scientists
whose findings they disagreed with.
One email from 1999, titled "CENSORED!!!!!" showed one U.S.-based
scientist uncomfortable with such tactics. "As for thinking that it is
'Better that nothing appear, than something unacceptable to us' … as
though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of
paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant. Science moves forward whether
we agree with individual articles or not," the email said.
More recent exchanges centered on requests by independent climate
researchers for access to data used by British scientists for some of
their papers. The hacked folder is labeled "FOIA," a reference to the
Freedom of Information Act requests made by other scientists for access
to raw data used to reach conclusions about global temperatures.
Many of the email exchanges discussed ways to decline such requests for
information, on the grounds that the data was confidential or was
intellectual property. In other email exchanges related to the FOIA
requests, some U.K. researchers asked foreign scientists to delete all
emails related to their work for the upcoming IPCC summary. In others,
they discussed boycotting scientific journals that require them to make
their data public."
--------------End quote
How about that? It is obvious that politics and group think have a
tremendous role to play in science and the parallels one can draw from
this with the "science" of evolution are self evident.
Enjoy
Mike Dworetsky
So what you are quoting says that the climate-change skeptics are promoting
their case by stealing files from the computers of the scientists, rather
than doing their own modelling and measurements and writing papers for
peer-reviewed literature. They are complaining in blogs and the press about
the scientists and their conclusions, rather than doing publishable science
to present an opposite viewpoint.
And you wonder why they have been equated to creationists and IDists who
don't do any science themselves?
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Nashton
>
> So what you are quoting says that the climate-change skeptics are promoting
> their case by stealing files from the computers of the scientists, rather
> than doing their own modelling and measurements and writing papers for
> peer-reviewed literature. They are complaining in blogs and the press about
> the scientists and their conclusions, rather than doing publishable science
> to present an opposite viewpoint.
>
> And you wonder why they have been equated to creationists and IDists who
> don't do any science themselves?
>
What I'm quoting, you colossal imbecile, is an account of unethical
behavior by the part of scientists that have done whatever they could to
minimize dissent by any means possible.
How fscking thick can you be?
Devils Advocaat
From the first cited source in your OP.
In all, more than 1,000 emails and more than 2,000 other documents
were stolen Thursday from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia
University in the U.K. The identity of the hackers isn't certain, but
the files were posted on a Russian file-sharing server late Thursday,
and university officials confirmed over the weekend that their
computer had been attacked and said the documents appeared to be
genuine.
"The selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers
taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine
attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way," the
university said.
End of extract.
So the fact that 1000 emails and 2000 other documents were stolen, and
then posted on a Russia file-sharing server, in an out of context
situation doesn't strike you as a dishonest way to address the issue
of Anthropocentric Global Warming?
Eric Root
Whoosh!
Nashton
You're right. This was only reported in the WSJ.
Oh and hold on, it was also said that the documents (emails) appear to
be genuine.
I guess that if you find a dead body in a compost bin, you would deny
that there was a death?
It also appears that it's good enough for this fellow:
"Mojib Latif, a climate researcher at Germany's Leibniz Institute of
Marine Sciences, said he found it hard to believe that climate
scientists were trying to squelch dissent. Mr. Latif, who believes in
man-made global warming but who has co-authored a paper ascribing
current cooling to temporary natural trends, said, "I simply can't
believe that there is a kind of mafia that is trying to inhibit critical
papers from being published."
Dream whatever you want to dream. When your beliefs trump the evidence,
there is nothing anyone can say or write to convince you otherwise.
Ron O
NashT is the poster child of the ignorant, incompetent and the
dishonest. Why would you expect him to expect more out of some other
anti-science group?
Ron Okimoto
stew dean
That's a tough challange as you set the bar high.
I too equate IDists with climate change denialists. In the world of
climate change there are a lot of oppinons, a lot of bickering and a
lot of political pressure that makes things tough for those working in
the feild.
Any publically facing work is heavily attacked by highly funded
special interest groups set up by those dirven by short term profits.
That climate change is happening is not in doubt, that it is man made
is also not in doubt. Where the doubt and arguments rightly happen is
around how bad things are going to get and what we can do about it.
That's where I'd expect back biting to happen as if your findings
show, for example, that we are about to trigger a runaway green house
effect or that it's too late to do anything effective about it - then
what do you do with that? Many people willl be telling you 'are you a
really sure about that' and even if you know it's over 50% likely for
nearly everyone that won't be enough.
If you go by the science alone - we should have pulled the brakes on
over 10 years ago. If you go by the politics you'll just be deafened
by emotive charged arguments. Even in various green movements there is
a lot of arguments about the right thing to do.
Emotions run high on this one - but we are not talking about unethical
behavour in any way, just humans getting worried and frustrated and
what that leads to.
All the opposition has to do is create opinoin peaces and wishfull
thinking folks like you will lap it up and use it to cast doubt on
real scientific work.
Stew
Nashton
Whom exactly is anti-science here? The WSJ? The people that wrote the
emails? Who is it, Ron?
And what about discussing the new findings that suggest that methanol,
soot and other substances account for AGW more than CO2?
You're just content in using t.o as an outlet for the fact that your
personal life is out of control. It's not what it's intended for.
From my perspective, sticking your head in the sand isn't a part of
science as its conducted today.
Nashton
> On Nov 23, 11:41 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>> Mike Dworetsky wrote:
>>
>>> So what you are quoting says that the climate-change skeptics are promoting
>>> their case by stealing files from the computers of the scientists, rather
>>> than doing their own modelling and measurements and writing papers for
>>> peer-reviewed literature. They are complaining in blogs and the press about
>>> the scientists and their conclusions, rather than doing publishable science
>>> to present an opposite viewpoint.
>>> And you wonder why they have been equated to creationists and IDists who
>>> don't do any science themselves?
>> What I'm quoting, you colossal imbecile, is an account of unethical
>> behavior by the part of scientists that have done whatever they could to
>> minimize dissent by any means possible.
>>
>> How fscking thick can you be?
>
> That's a tough challange as you set the bar high.
>
> I too equate IDists with climate change denialists.
Where did you ever get the idea that I'm a GW denialist [sic]?
In the world of
> climate change there are a lot of oppinons, a lot of bickering and a
> lot of political pressure that makes things tough for those working in
> the feild.
For sure and the article in the WSJ shows just how the balance of power
of opinion, as it were, is heavily leaning towards AGW.
>
> Any publically facing work is heavily attacked by highly funded
> special interest groups set up by those dirven by short term profits.
Sorry?
>
> That climate change is happening is not in doubt, that it is man made
> is also not in doubt.
Whatever you say.
It's the degree of contribution of human activities that needs to be
questioned. It can be 90% but it can also be 30 or 40%. The AGW models
are not carved in stone, you know.
<snip>
Ye Old One
Not as thick as a creationist.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
VoiceOfReason
Nashton wrote:
<...>
> A partial review of the emails shows ...
A "partial" review? 'Nuf said.
VoiceOfReason
Gasp! You mean you don't trust hackers? ;-)
Ron O
You are and the guys that stole the information and put out their
selected examples. Look in the mirror.
Talk about personal lives that are out of control. What kind of
personal life can a racist incompetent religious bigot have?
Projection is a way of life for you NashT. Why do you engage in it so
often? Projection is about the only thing that you have left. How
sad is that? When did you run out of real arguments? When did you
give up? Why is what you are currently doing good enough for you? If
your messed up behavior on this group isn't projection, just put up
the honest and valid anti-evolution arguments that you have squirreled
away. When you can't do something as essential to your beliefs as
that, why keep harping on the percieived problems of the other side?
Your entire presence on this board has just been projection of your
own inadequacies for years, now. Sniping from the side lines isn't
valid argument.
Just try one more time to put up a valid argument. Tell us what the
argument is, what it means to you and a reference to the argument so
we can check it out for ourselves. Why have you given up doing that?
What does such a failure tell you about yourself and how you treat
others due to your own deficiencies?
Ron Okimoto
Nashton
I'm a hacker, now?
LOL
>
> Talk about personal lives that are out of control. What kind of
> personal life can a racist incompetent religious bigot have?
LOL
You have no arguments, nothing to say about the doubts cast on AGW and
its relative contribution and the corruption that is partially exposed
within the scientific community when it comes to GW. You are a follower,
just another member of a borg with an identical mantra and group-think.
<snip>
>
> Just try one more time to put up a valid argument. Tell us what the
> argument is, what it means to you and a reference to the argument so
> we can check it out for ourselves. Why have you given up doing that?
> What does such a failure tell you about yourself and how you treat
> others due to your own deficiencies?
Have the article read to you. Perhaps it will help?
Have my post read to you also, repeatedly if necessary.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>
Devils Advocaat
I am not disputing the veracity of the emails and documents. But if
information is published in an out of context situation as these
stolen documents and emails were, then people will get the wrong end
of the stick and jump to the wrong conclusions, as various people
already appear to have done.
If the hackers were genuinely concerned that there whole idea of
Anthropocentric Global Warming was a scam, then they would present
their own data, papers and other materials in the normal manner.
The fact that they have stolen this information and published it,
which are both crimes according to British legislation should be of
considerable concern, especially as these emails and documents have
been taken out of context with the intention of misrepresenting the
either the content or the persons associated with the information
(also a crime according to British legislation).
But you seem to be choosing to ignore these facts so you can accuse
the scientists whose documents were stolen, of some sort of nefarious
conspiracy.
And by the way, your presumption that I would deny that there had been
a death if a dead body was found in a compost bin is a somewhat lame
attempt at insulting my intelligence, and does nothing to defend your
position on the issue you raised in your opening post.
>
> It also appears that it's good enough for this fellow:
>
> "Mojib Latif, a climate researcher at Germany's Leibniz Institute of
> Marine Sciences, said he found it hard to believe that climate
> scientists were trying to squelch dissent. Mr. Latif, who believes in
> man-made global warming but who has co-authored a paper ascribing
> current cooling to temporary natural trends, said, "I simply can't
> believe that there is a kind of mafia that is trying to inhibit critical
> papers from being published."
And I would ask, what evidence is there that papers critical of
Anthropocentric Global Warming have not been published, and on what
basis did the peer review boards choose not to publish them?
I certainly wouldn't jump up and down screaming about censorship and
conspiracies.
>
> Dream whatever you want to dream. When your beliefs trump the evidence,
> there is nothing anyone can say or write to convince you otherwise.
I don't operate on the basis of what I believe trumps the evidence as
I never suffered from that kind of brain-washing when I was younger.
I actually follow the evidence to its logical conclusion, but if
someone can actually present a reasoned argument (with supporting
evidence) that shows I am heading in the wrong direction I will listen
to what they have to say and reconsider my own position on whatever
issue is involved.
All-seeing-I
Of course. How else could a theory such as evolution be catapulted
into the realm of legitimate science? The evo-freaks have announced
that they want the ToE to have inclusion in the M.D. curriculum. Being
included in the medical curriculum would place evolution side by side
with a most respected science and give the illusion that evolution is
as legitimate as medicine.
They claim on the one hand that medical science is brilliant just as
it is while claiming on the other that medical doctors need to be
taught evolution. What a lie. Medical science, and most of biology
BTW, was doing fine before evolution and will be doing just fine once
evolution has be dumped.
Furthermore, The evolutionists make the claim that because someone is
not a scientist they "are stupid" and "don't understand" the ToE.. But
the real truth is BECAUSE someone is not a scientist they can spot all
of the inconsistencies and holes the theory actually has.
Why is it that all the other theories can be put into layman's terms
and everyone understands them with the exception of evolution? Because
evolution is made up of parts. As long as those parts are not compared
to the other parts or to the rest of the actual world then evolution
can appear to be as solid as a brick house.
But once you turn the bricks of evolution side ways to see all sides
of it, then it becomes clear. One can then see for themselves that the
bricks of evolution are actually as thin as a playing card. So instead
of evolution being solid as a brick house it is actually just a house
of cards waiting to be blown down.
All of Satan's counterfeits to Gods work are nothing more then an
illusion and a house of cards.The evo-freaks know this. That is why
they have to resort to lies, distortions, and personal attacks to make
their points. They do a better job of making evolution look bad then
any divine intervention could ever do. Which is quite amusing to
watch.
The masses are catching on to the media hype and distortions of truth
as well. Which took too long in my opinion. So never underestimate the
power of television, movies and print media to spread lies as if they
were truth. But lies that have been elevated to the status of truth
are still lies. All lies are eventually discovered. Some just take
longer then others if they are cleverly hidden; Such as with
evolution.
--
Dealing the cards of truth with...
The All Seeing I
bpuharic
>
>How about that? It is obvious that politics and group think have a
>tremendous role to play in science and the parallels one can draw from
>this with the "science" of evolution are self evident.
>
>Enjoy
except of course one could make the same argument about the existence
of atoms, or of heat, or of oxygen, right?
how many scientists dispute the existence of atoms?
the fact is, evolution...and atoms...is settled science.
and creationism is settled as well. 2000 years of being wrong.
bpuharic
what the moron creationist forgot is this:
there IS a significant number of scientists who dispute global
warming. we know that because they tell us they dispute it.
there are no scientists who dispute evolution.
so if nasht is RIGHT and politics plays a role in science....
and we know that's true because scientists TELL us that....
then why is there no dispute about evolution?
except, of course, among morons like nasht who is a religious
extremist?
his own argument tells us that his own argument is false
bpuharic
>>
>
>You're right. This was only reported in the WSJ.
>Oh and hold on, it was also said that the documents (emails) appear to
>be genuine.
>I guess that if you find a dead body in a compost bin, you would deny
>that there was a death?
nasht is right. if there is a conspiracy, then scientists will tell us
about it
we know this is fact because nasht himself has quoted scientists who
say there is a conspiracy
however...he has a problem.....there are no scientists doing this for
evolution.
so his own argument shows that evolution is science
thanks nasht. appreciate it
Boikat
The ToE is already is legitimate science, fool. You're ignorance does
not change that fact.
<snip remaining ignorant drool and slobber.>
Boikat
bpuharic
>
> In the world of
>> climate change there are a lot of oppinons, a lot of bickering and a
>> lot of political pressure that makes things tough for those working in
>> the feild.
>
>For sure and the article in the WSJ shows just how the balance of power
>of opinion, as it were, is heavily leaning towards AGW.
so scientists change their minds based on evidence?
izzat what you're saying,c reationist?
doesn't do much for your view of evolution does it? because what
you've PROVEN is that science is self correcting, haven't you?
and evolution is settled science
creationism is 2000 years of lies
>
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>Of course. How else could a theory such as evolution be catapulted
>into the realm of legitimate science? The evo-freaks have announced
>that they want the ToE to have inclusion in the M.D. curriculum. Being
>included in the medical curriculum would place evolution side by side
>with a most respected science and give the illusion that evolution is
>as legitimate as medicine.
those of us who actually do science for a living...as opposed to those
of you who learn comic book science in sunday school...see evolution
as science
>
>They claim on the one hand that medical science is brilliant just as
>it is while claiming on the other that medical doctors need to be
>taught evolution. What a lie. Medical science, and most of biology
>BTW, was doing fine before evolution and will be doing just fine once
>evolution has be dumped.
and you know that how?
and since all scientists accept evolution, it ain't gonna be dumped.
sorry, creationist. no scientist believes in your ghost based view of
reality
>
>Furthermore, The evolutionists make the claim that because someone is
>not a scientist they "are stupid" and "don't understand" the ToE.. But
>the real truth is BECAUSE someone is not a scientist they can spot all
>of the inconsistencies and holes the theory actually has.
uh...what?
tell me, creationist, what flaws are there in quantum theory? you're a
non scientist so you should be able to spot 'em right away, correct?
and by that logic, i'm not a christan, so i can spot the flaws in
christianity.
golly. you're right!!
>
>Why is it that all the other theories can be put into layman's terms
>and everyone understands them with the exception of evolution?
really? OK. tell me about the copenhagen view of quantum physics and
its relationship to density functional theory, m'kay?
if you say it can be put in layman's terms, then do so!
>
>But once you turn the bricks of evolution side ways to see all sides
>of it, then it becomes clear. One can then see for themselves that the
>bricks of evolution are actually as thin as a playing card. So instead
>of evolution being solid as a brick house it is actually just a house
>of cards waiting to be blown down.
\
meaningless. rhetoric empty rhetoric
>
>All of Satan's counterfeits to Gods work are nothing more then an
>illusion and a house of cards.The evo-freaks know this. That is why
>they have to resort to lies, distortions, and personal attacks to make
>their points. They do a better job of making evolution look bad then
>any divine intervention could ever do. Which is quite amusing to
>watch.
for 2000 y ears creationists told us ghosts caused earthquakes. they
were wrong
they told us ghosts caused disease. they were wrong
they told us ghosts caused the weather. they were wrong
they told us ghosts caused the planets to move. they were wrong
now they tell us ghosts cause species to exist...let me guess....
they're wrong
>
>The masses are catching on to the media hype and distortions of truth
>as well
really? then why is religion dying among the young? young people are
the biggest group of atheists in the US.
good luck creationist. your days are numbered
chris thompson
[...]
>
> How about that? It is obvious that politics and group think have a
> tremendous role to play in science and the parallels one can draw from
> this with the "science" of evolution are self evident.
>
> Enjoy
Actually Nashton, the only self-evident conclusion to be drawn here is
that you are either (1) delusional and paranoid, to see conspiracies
on the part of evolutionary biologists, or (2) a liar.
On further reflection, I would say the choices are not mutually
exclusive.
However, if you have some evidence of such a conspiracy, you should
post it. Incompetent attempts at snide innuendo have been your sole
contribution around here for a long time, but maybe you actually have
something this time?
Heh. Didn't think so.
Chris
bpuharic
>
>You have no arguments, nothing to say about the doubts cast on AGW and
>its relative contribution and the corruption that is partially exposed
>within the scientific community when it comes to GW. You are a follower,
>just another member of a borg with an identical mantra and group-think.
i love it. nasht proves that scientists have big mouths and tell us if
they think there's a conspiracy.
and this blows h im out of the water WRT evolution...because there's
nothing like this for evolution
and creationism? 2000 years of lies. they believe in a wizard based
universe of magic and fairy tales....2000 years of lies
>
>
RAM
Read for context.
>
>
> > Talk about personal lives that are out of control. What kind of
> > personal life can a racist incompetent religious bigot have?
>
> LOL
No it is true. You came in here on a moral high horse talking about
honest disagreement with biological facts.
Now you are slinging horseshit. You have no substantive response to
evolutionary research. AGW is a another antiscience distraction for
you. You don't know this literature either.
>
> You have no arguments, nothing to say about the doubts cast on AGW and
> its relative contribution and the corruption that is partially exposed
> within the scientific community when it comes to GW.
I do. It is a distraction form the scientific meta-analysis that
needs to be continuously updated and reviewed for a better scientific
understanding; rather than having to deal with the contentious
political posturing of idiots like you who climb on any group-think
antiscience bandwagon they can find.
> You are a follower,
> just another member of a borg with an identical mantra and group-think.
Not true, he knows evolutionary scientific research from the methods
to the theory. He is discussing biology; you are engaging in an
antiscience blivit.
You are a shallow putz who is pissed he is not taken seriously. Get
over it you never will until you show you know the science you are
criticizing.
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > Just try one more time to put up a valid argument. Tell us what the
> > argument is, what it means to you and a reference to the argument so
> > we can check it out for ourselves. Why have you given up doing that?
> > What does such a failure tell you about yourself and how you treat
> > others due to your own deficiencies?
>
> Have the article read to you. Perhaps it will help?
> Have my post read to you also, repeatedly if necessary.
AWG is discussed here for its likeness to Creationist denial parallels
not for its substance. Besides you probably know even less about that
literature.
Ron has you pegged and you want desperately to change the subject.
Your intellectual courage is yet another weakness.
>
>
>
> > Ron Okimoto
Mitchell Coffey
> magazine Science that CO2's contribution to AGW is significantly less
> than we thought and that managing AGW would be a little easier than was
> once thought, now this:
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html
>
> ---------------Begin quote
> Fellow scientists who disagreed with orthodox views on climate change
> were variously referred to as "prats" and "utter prats." In other
> exchanges, one climate researcher said he was "very tempted" to "beat
> the crap out of" a prominent, skeptical U.S. climate scientist.
Extreme language, that; and a clear, literal threat of imminent
violent coercion!
Whenever I'm putting together a bill-of-indictment, I summarize the
strongest evidence I possess, leaving the less-significant evidence
for later, more exhaustive reports. I can see then why the above
points were included here in the early reportage, and not the less-
damning nitpicks.
Mitchell Coffey
All-seeing-I
>
> those of us who actually do science for a living...
Which does not include you.
Good bye
Nashton
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:38:55 -0400, Nashton <na...@na.ca> wrote:
>
>
>> In the world of
>>> climate change there are a lot of oppinons, a lot of bickering and a
>>> lot of political pressure that makes things tough for those working in
>>> the feild.
>> For sure and the article in the WSJ shows just how the balance of power
>> of opinion, as it were, is heavily leaning towards AGW.
>
> so scientists change their minds based on evidence?
After a dogma has been well established and shoved down our throats for
decades.
Anything else you want to learn about?
<snip stupidities>
bpuharic
>Mike Dworetsky wrote:
>
>>
>> So what you are quoting says that the climate-change skeptics are promoting
>> their case by stealing files from the computers of the scientists, rather
>> than doing their own modelling and measurements and writing papers for
>> peer-reviewed literature. They are complaining in blogs and the press about
>> the scientists and their conclusions, rather than doing publishable science
>> to present an opposite viewpoint.
>>
>> And you wonder why they have been equated to creationists and IDists who
>> don't do any science themselves?
>>
>
>What I'm quoting, you colossal imbecile, is an account of unethical
>behavior by the part of scientists that have done whatever they could to
>minimize dissent by any means possible.
>
>How fscking thick can you be?
they didn't try to 'minimize dissent' because that's impossible in
science. unlike creationists, science can't excommunicate dissenters.
the problem for you creationists is that science can be done by
anyone. anyone can set up a lab. anyone can do research. anyone can
publish results. and your own reference proves that.
creationism is different. because it's religion...and because it's
wrong...it relies on authority to protect the public from the fact
it's wrong
bpuharic
really? i'm employed by a materials science company as an engineer.
you? you wash dishes at perkins. and pretend you're a scientist
good luck with that
All-seeing-I
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:16:53 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>
> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 23, 8:31 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> those of us who actually do science for a living...
>
> >Which does not include you.
>
> >Good bye
>
> really? i'm employed by a materials science company as an engineer.
more like as a gate gard with a computer.
I do hope you are not armed.
>
> you? you wash dishes at perkins. and pretend you're a scientist
>
> good luck with that
You are too stupid to be a scientist
Real scientists everywhere are laughing their asses off @ U --> The
God Hating Gate Guard
Caranx latus
You'll forgive me if I decline to accept that you have any idea what
real scientists are doing.
bpuharic
uh...what? how could it change if it were dogma?
you just keep contradicting your own argument.
the fact science changes BASED ON EVIDENCE is something you got
ass-raped on
of course we scientists knew it all the time
>
>Anything else you want to learn about?
yeah. how come you're so goddamned stupid? does jesus make you dumb?
>
><snip stupidities>
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Nov 23, 12:21 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:16:53 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>>
>> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 23, 8:31 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> those of us who actually do science for a living...
>>
>> >Which does not include you.
>>
>> >Good bye
>>
>> really? i'm employed by a materials science company as an engineer.
>
>more like as a gate gard with a computer.
>
>I do hope you are not armed.\\
believe what you want, if it makes you feel better. you're a master
of fantasies, so i guess i have no choice but to be included in your
little delusions
Boikat
> On Nov 23, 12:21 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:16:53 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>
> > <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > >On Nov 23, 8:31 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > >> those of us who actually do science for a living...
>
> > >Which does not include you.
>
> > >Good bye
>
> > really? i'm employed by a materials science company as an engineer.
>
> more like as a gate gard with a computer.
>
> I do hope you are not armed.
>
>
>
> > you? you wash dishes at perkins. and pretend you're a scientist
>
> > good luck with that
>
> You are too stupid to be a scientist
That's ironic, coming from you, Mr. Cambrian Mammal = Trilobite.
>
> Real scientists everywhere are laughing their asses off @ U --> The
> God Hating Gate Guard
If real scientists are laughing at anyone, they're laughing at you,
burger-flipper.
Boikat
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are nuttier then YOO, who has held every job on the planet. TWICE
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
WoW. I huess you nailed me. NOT
I bet you got picked on a lot in school. You were the kid shoved in a
locker. You were the kid that never took a shower in gym class and
that loved getting detention so you would not have to run at 3 o'
clock
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
I may not know what they are "doing" with their work, but I do know
the real scientists op the world reading TO must get quite a laugh at
wf3d claiming to do what they can do.
Boikat
> On Nov 23, 1:52 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 23, 12:50 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 23, 12:21 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:16:53 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>
> > > > <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > > > >On Nov 23, 8:31 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >> those of us who actually do science for a living...
>
> > > > >Which does not include you.
>
> > > > >Good bye
>
> > > > really? i'm employed by a materials science company as an engineer.
>
> > > more like as a gate gard with a computer.
>
> > > I do hope you are not armed.
>
> > > > you? you wash dishes at perkins. and pretend you're a scientist
>
> > > > good luck with that
>
> > > You are too stupid to be a scientist
>
> > That's ironic, coming from you, Mr. Cambrian Mammal = Trilobite.
>
> > > Real scientists everywhere are laughing their asses off @ U --> The
> > > God Hating Gate Guard
>
> > If real scientists are laughing at anyone, they're laughing at you,
> > burger-flipper.
>
>
> I bet you got picked on a lot in school. You were the kid shoved in a
> locker. You were the kid that never took a shower in gym class and
> that loved getting detention so you would not have to run at 3 o'
"Projection" fits you like a well tailored suit, Mr. Cambrain Mammal =
Trilobite.
Boikat
richardal...@googlemail.com
..and who are these "real scientists"?
As someone who is involved in scientific research, and who publishes
his findings in academic journals, I consider myself to be a
scientist. So do other scientists working in my field, so do the
administrators of the museums and universities where I do my research,
and so do the makers of TV programmes looking for scientific input
relevant to my field.
I haven't read any posts by w3d which imply that he is claiming
anything he can't do - in rather stark contrast to the idiotic bombast
coming from you.
What qualifies you to judge who is or who is not a scientist?
RF
All-seeing-I
>
> >>> In the world of
> >>>> climate change there are a lot of oppinons, a lot of bickering and a
> >>>> lot of political pressure that makes things tough for those working in
> >>>> the feild.
> >>> For sure and the article in the WSJ shows just how the balance of power
> >>> of opinion, as it were, is heavily leaning towards AGW.
>
> >> so scientists change their minds based on evidence?
>
> >After a dogma has been well established and shoved down our throats for
> >decades.
>
> uh...what? how could it change if it were dogma?
>
> you just keep contradicting your own argument.
>
> the fact science changes BASED ON EVIDENCE is something you got
> ass-raped on
>
> of course we scientists knew it all the time
>
>
>
> >Anything else you want to learn about?
>
> yeah. how come you're so goddamned stupid? does jesus make you dumb?
So says "The God Hating Gate Guard"
Caranx latus
> On Nov 23, 1:00 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 23, 1:50 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 23, 12:21 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:16:53 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>
> > > > <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > > > >On Nov 23, 8:31 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >> those of us who actually do science for a living...
>
> > > > >Which does not include you.
>
> > > > >Good bye
>
> > > > really? i'm employed by a materials science company as an engineer.
>
> > > more like as a gate gard with a computer.
>
> > > I do hope you are not armed.
>
> > > > you? you wash dishes at perkins. and pretend you're a scientist
>
> > > > good luck with that
>
> > > You are too stupid to be a scientist
>
> > > Real scientists everywhere are laughing their asses off @ U --> The
> > > God Hating Gate Guard
>
> > You'll forgive me if I decline to accept that you have any idea what
> > real scientists are doing.
>
> the real scientists op the world reading TO must get quite a laugh at
> wf3d claiming to do what they can do.
How do you think that they'd react to someone who higgledy-piggledy
weaves myths together and thinks that the resulting hodge-podge is
true? I'm not a scientist, but I think you're a hoot. Funniest thing
to hit talk.origins in years. You really should write and publish a
chronology of humankind, 'cause I'm certain that you believe lots of
weirdness that you haven't told us about yet.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
On the internet, my grandmother can a wagon.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>I may not know what they are "doing" with their work, but I do know
>the real scientists op the world reading TO must get quite a laugh at
>wf3d claiming to do what they can do.
it's wf3h
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Nov 23, 1:49 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:50:23 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>>
>>
>>
>> believe what you want, if it makes you feel better. you're a master
>> of fantasies, so i guess i have no choice but to be included in your
>> little delusions- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>You are nuttier then YOO, who has held every job on the planet. TWICE
why you big sweetheart! and here i thought you were just an amoral
degenerate...then you go and say something nice like this....
golly you're great!
bpuharic
the creationist thinks his view of god is the only view of god.
creationists think they're gods...
All-seeing-I
Did your mother have any kids that lived?
Boikat
Four. Your point, besides the one on the top of your head, Mr.
Cambrian Mammal = Trilobite?
Boikat
Caranx latus
> On Nov 23, 3:02 pm, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
<snip>
> > What qualifies you to judge who is or who is not a scientist?
>
> > RF
>
> On the internet, my grandmother can a wagon.
More coherence, please.
Stuart
Hmmmm. You seem to know alot about that.
I wonder..
Stuart
Stuart
>
> >> In the world of
> >>> climate change there are a lot of oppinons, a lot of bickering and a
> >>> lot of political pressure that makes things tough for those working in
> >>> the feild.
> >> For sure and the article in the WSJ shows just how the balance of power
> >> of opinion, as it were, is heavily leaning towards AGW.
>
> > so scientists change their minds based on evidence?
>
> After a dogma has been well established and shoved down our throats for
> decades.
>
You mean like atomic theory? Science has the capacity for change which
is more
that I can say for GWDers, IDers and other crackpot groups and
conspiracy theorists.
Stuart
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>On the internet, my grandmother can a wagon.
and on the internet you pretend you know science.
imagine that
Ye Old One
Oh! Is that your new job? Doubt it will last you long, even gate
guards have to have a working brain.
--
Bob.
If brains were taxed, you would get a rebate.
Caranx latus
You seem to be in a bit of a foul mood today. I would have thought
that all of that attention-whoring you did on the weekend would have
mellowed you out. Guess not. Seems to have been a waste of your time.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Another ridiculous comment.
But then, that is really all we get from you.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
heekster
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Can I ask why you changed to bpuharic?
Just interested :)
--
Bob.
Theists think all gods but theirs are false. Atheists simply don't
make an exception for the last one.
Ye Old One
Lying again Mudbrain? Have you ever stopped to consider just how
stupid you look with all these lies?
Mike Dworetsky
She should stick to plums and peaches, little boy. Wagons are hard to fit
in cans.
Of course, some of us who are scientists post under our real names, and you
can look us up. We have nothing to hide, unlike yourself. Why do you hide
behind numerous nyms?
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Boikat
Be realistic! You expect too much.
Boikat
Mike Dworetsky
Tell us more about how the little alien discovered in the Urals will change
everything...you never did reply to all the posts people sent in reply,
other than complain that someone was using "ad homs" about you.
How ya doing with that "There are cabbages, therefore goddidit" effort?
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Unlike yours, yes.
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 23, 1:52 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 23, 12:50 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 23, 12:21 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:16:53 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>>
>> > > <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> > > >On Nov 23, 8:31 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > >> those of us who actually do science for a living...
>>
>> > > >Which does not include you.
>>
>> > > >Good bye
>>
>> > > really? i'm employed by a materials science company as an engineer.
>>
>> > more like as a gate gard with a computer.
>>
>> > I do hope you are not armed.
>>
>> > > you? you wash dishes at perkins. and pretend you're a scientist
>>
>> > > good luck with that
>>
>> > You are too stupid to be a scientist
>>
>> That's ironic, coming from you, Mr. Cambrian Mammal = Trilobite.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Real scientists everywhere are laughing their asses off @ U --> The
>> > God Hating Gate Guard
>>
>> If real scientists are laughing at anyone, they're laughing at you,
>> burger-flipper.
>>
>> Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>WoW. I guess you nailed me.
>
>I got picked on a lot in school. I was the kid shoved in a
>locker. I was the kid that never took a shower in gym class and
>that loved getting detention so I would not have to run at 3 o'clock.
>I was also the kid that picked up every crack-pot idea going.
Post corrected. I really should start charging for this service but I
guess on a floor cleaners wage you can't afford my fees.
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
Kermit
> We are now learning (http://www.newsweek.com/id/220552/page/4), from the
> magazine Science that CO2's contribution to AGW is significantly less
> than we thought and that managing AGW would be a little easier than was
> once thought, now this:
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html
>
> ---------------Begin quote
>
> "The picture that emerges of prominent climate-change scientists from
> the more than 3,000 documents and emails accessed by hackers and put on
> the Internet this week is one of professional backbiting and
> questionable scientific practices. It could undermine the idea that the
> science of man-made global warming is entirely settled just weeks before
> a crucial climate-change summit.
>
> Researchers at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East
> Anglia, England, were victims of a cyberattack by hackers sometime
> Thursday. A collection of emails dating back to the mid-1990s as well as
> scientific documents were splashed across the Internet. University
> officials confirmed the hacker attack, but couldn't immediately confirm
> the authenticity of all the documents posted on the Internet.
>
> The publicly posted material includes years of correspondence among
> leading climate researchers, most of whom participate in the preparation
> of climate-change reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> Change, the authoritative summaries of global climate science that
> influence policy makers around the world.
>
> The release of the documents comes just weeks before a big
> climate-change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, meant to lay the
> groundwork for a new global treaty to curb greenhouse-gas emissions and
> fight climate change. Momentum for an agreement has been undermined by
> the economic slump, which has put environmental issues on the back
> burner in most countries, and by a 10-year cooling trend in global
> temperatures that runs contrary to many of the dire predictions in
> climate models such as the IPCC's.
>
> A partial review of the emails shows that in many cases, climate
> scientists revealed that their own research wasn't always conclusive. In
> others, they discussed ways to paper over differences among themselves
> in order to present a "unified" view on climate change. On at least one
> occasion, climate scientists were asked to "beef up" conclusions about
> climate change and extreme weather events because environmental
> officials in one country were planning a "big public splash."
>
> The release of the documents has given ammunition to many skeptics of
> man-made global warming, who for years have argued that the scientific
> "consensus" was less robust than the official IPCC summaries indicated
> and that climate researchers systematically ostracized other scientists
> who presented findings that differed from orthodox views.
>
> Since the hacking, many Web sites catering to climate skeptics have
> pored over the material and concluded that it shows a concerted effort
> to distort climate science. Other Web sites catering to climate
> scientists have dismissed those claims.
>
> The tension between those two camps is apparent in the emails. More
> recent messages showed climate scientists were increasingly concerned
> about blog postings and articles on leading skeptical Web sites. Much of
> the internal discussion over scientific papers centered on how to
> pre-empt attacks from prominent skeptics, for example.
>
> Fellow scientists who disagreed with orthodox views on climate change
> were variously referred to as "prats" and "utter prats." In other
> exchanges, one climate researcher said he was "very tempted" to "beat
> the crap out of" a prominent, skeptical U.S. climate scientist.
>
> In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to arrange
> for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in scientific
> journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times appeared to
> pressure scientific journals not to publish research by other scientists
> whose findings they disagreed with.
>
> One email from 1999, titled "CENSORED!!!!!" showed one U.S.-based
> scientist uncomfortable with such tactics. "As for thinking that it is
> 'Better that nothing appear, than something unacceptable to us' … as
> though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of
> paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant. Science moves forward whether
> we agree with individual articles or not," the email said.
>
> More recent exchanges centered on requests by independent climate
> researchers for access to data used by British scientists for some of
> their papers. The hacked folder is labeled "FOIA," a reference to the
> Freedom of Information Act requests made by other scientists for access
> to raw data used to reach conclusions about global temperatures.
>
> Many of the email exchanges discussed ways to decline such requests for
> information, on the grounds that the data was confidential or was
> intellectual property. In other email exchanges related to the FOIA
> requests, some U.K. researchers asked foreign scientists to delete all
> emails related to their work for the upcoming IPCC summary. In others,
> they discussed boycotting scientific journals that require them to make
> their data public."
>
> --------------End quote
>
> How about that? It is obvious that politics and group think have a
> tremendous role to play in science and the parallels one can draw from
> this with the "science" of evolution are self evident.
>
> Enjoy
Quote mining, political bickering, embarrassing emaisl of some
unpecified nature, and one possible indication of smurfing. There is a
reference to deleting data, but the data specified are derived, and
can be reconstructed by anybody, given math skills and the original
data. What we seem to have is a research lab trying to maximize their
income and minimize their worries about how their reports look to
various groups of hostile people (rival scientists, money-dispensing
and suspicious politicians, and anti-science activists). Certainly no
evidence that the climate change data is a conspiracy; only that
stressed small outfits have to worry too much about stuff that isn't
their primary function. If they faked any data rival scientists will
be on them in a heartbeat, and they would best know if any bad science
were done. If there *was smurfing, the FBI accountants will rake them
over the coals. A week before the Copenhagen conference, this is
likely a political ploy, and I'm guessing the hackers had this long
enough for their political employers to select choice and out-of-
context, partial emails to release.
Do you think Christianity is demonstrated nonsense if one
televangelist is shown to be corrupt or otherwise decadent? I should
hope not; but you are quick enough to jump on this.
Kermit
bpuharic
>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:19:59 -0500, bpuharic <wf...@comcast.net>
>enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:51:01 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>><ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I may not know what they are "doing" with their work, but I do know
>>>the real scientists op the world reading TO must get quite a laugh at
>>>wf3d claiming to do what they can do.
>>
>>it's wf3h
>
>Can I ask why you changed to bpuharic?
>
>Just interested :)
i dumped google groups and got 'agent' as a newsreader...had to
configure it with a username...so that's what i use for everything
else...keeps it simple for a simple guy like me!
Sapient Fridge
<f9e14e3a-7c93-4598...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
>On the internet, my grandmother can a wagon.
If an Adman gran can can a wagon, how many wagons can an Adman gran can?
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
Kermit
> into the realm of legitimate science?
Why, through verifiable evidence and testable models, of course, which
is how it became respectable science. The ToE is probably the most
widely-supported (that is, with data from a variety of fields) of all
theories.
> The evo-freaks have announced
> that they want the ToE to have inclusion in the M.D. curriculum.
By "The evo-freaks have announced" I assume you mean that some posters
here have wished...
> Being
> included in the medical curriculum would place evolution side by side
> with a most respected science
Medical doctors are not per se researchers. Medical researchers, who
may or may not be medical doctors, are certainly acquainted with
evolutionary science, and some are deeply educated in it.
>and give the illusion that evolution is
> as legitimate as medicine.
Don't put down medicine like that; it's been respectable since, oh,
1910 or so, only a generation or two after evolutionary science.
>
> They claim on the one hand that medical science is brilliant just as
> it is while claiming on the other that medical doctors need to be
> taught evolution.
More evidence - as if we needed it - that you live in a black and
white world. What makes you think something brilliant can't be
improved? But I would worry about medical students having the time for
more than an introductory course.
> What a lie. Medical science, and most of biology
> BTW, was doing fine before evolution and will be doing just fine once
> evolution has be dumped.
What was good enough for Galen is good enough for you, eh? And alchemy
was doing just fine before Lavoisier.
>
> Furthermore, The evolutionists make the claim that because someone is
> not a scientist they "are stupid" and "don't understand" the ToE..
No, that's true of *you, but not because you're not a scientist. It's
because you are ignorant and determined to remain so.
> But
> the real truth is BECAUSE someone is not a scientist they can spot all
> of the inconsistencies and holes the theory actually has.
If one is ignorant, one can hardly spot shortcomings in a field. What
inconsistencies, BTW? Perhaps if you named one it would help buttress
your peculiar accusations.
>
> Why is it that all the other theories can be put into layman's terms
> and everyone understands them with the exception of evolution?
Really? Quantum physics can be understood by everyone?
In any event, I never found the basic concepts of evolution very
tricky. Once they were explained to me, it wasn't a problem.
> Because
> evolution is made up of parts. As long as those parts are not compared
> to the other parts or to the rest of the actual world then evolution
> can appear to be as solid as a brick house.
Waiting for an example...
>
> But once you turn the bricks of evolution side ways to see all sides
> of it, then it becomes clear. One can then see for themselves that the
> bricks of evolution are actually as thin as a playing card. So instead
> of evolution being solid as a brick house it is actually just a house
> of cards waiting to be blown down.
Still waiting...
>
> All of Satan's counterfeits to Gods work are nothing more then an
> illusion and a house of cards.
Like the world which you think is an illusion. The "real" reality
doesn't match mere material reality, remember? So is this world around
us God's handiwork or not?
> The evo-freaks know this. That is why
> they have to resort to lies, distortions, and personal attacks to make
> their points.
The personal attacks are resorted to when simple concepts are
presented in dozens of ways in hundreds of responses, and you still
get simple concepts wrong. And it seems to be willful; if we really
thought you were simply simple-minded you wouldn't get much grief.
It's the determined ignorance coupled with arrogance that we find less
than exemplary.
> They do a better job of making evolution look bad then
> any divine intervention could ever do. Which is quite amusing to
> watch.
And yet you will not give one example.
You have learned to mimic the form of rhetorical arguments, but have
not mastered the idea that in arguments about science, the *content is
important. Repeating a bad argument or refuted assertion does *not
give you another chance at being the winner; it just demonstrates once
again that you haven't a clue.
>
> The masses are catching on to the media hype and distortions of truth
> as well.
Yes, well, you can go to the masses when you want your heart operated
on, or your house built, or your eyeglasses ground, or your car fixed,
or your news reported. Me, I want the best.
> Which took too long in my opinion. So never underestimate the
> power of television, movies and print media to spread lies as if they
> were truth. But lies that have been elevated to the status of truth
> are still lies. All lies are eventually discovered. Some just take
> longer then others if they are cleverly hidden; Such as with
> evolution.
Cleverly hidden in realty.
>
> --
> Dealing the cards of truth with...
...even if they aren't there. Place yer bets!
>
> The All Seeing I
Kermit
John Wilkins
<heek...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
> In the "adventures in incoherency", category,
>
> >On the internet, my grandmother can a wagon.
>
I think you have miscategorised it. It's from the "colorless green
ideas furiously" cupboard.
John Wilkins
<use_repl...@spamsights.org> wrote:
> In message
> <f9e14e3a-7c93-4598...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
> >On the internet, my grandmother can a wagon.
>
> If an Adman gran can can a wagon, how many wagons can an Adman gran can?
Why do I have an image of Moulin Rouge in my mind now?
All-seeing-I
wow fish.
you really do need things spelled out.
he claims on the internet to be a scientist. My comment shows anyone
claim to be anything on the internet.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
But you never explained why cabbage is harvested at a time when the
human body needs those specific nutrients the most is not a designed
attribute.
Why is that?
All-seeing-I
> In article <upYDOygj8wCLF...@spamsights.org>, Sapient Fridge
>
> <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org> wrote:
> > In message
> > <f9e14e3a-7c93-4598-9fe5-17dfb48a7...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
> > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
> > >On the internet, my grandmother can a wagon.
>
> > If an Adman gran can can a wagon, how many wagons can an Adman gran can?
>
> Why do I have an image of Moulin Rouge in my mind now?
Because you are an idiot?
frightening you are about to be a teacher too!
All-seeing-I
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I stopped reading at "respectable science" part. I just could not stop
laughing!.
HJAHAHAHAH!!!!!
heekster
wrote:
Yes, of course it is.
<palm slaps forehead>
Desertphile
> bpuharic wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:38:55 -0400, Nashton <na...@na.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> In the world of
> >>> climate change there are a lot of oppinons, a lot of bickering and a
> >>> lot of political pressure that makes things tough for those working in
> >>> the feild.
> >> For sure and the article in the WSJ shows just how the balance of power
> >> of opinion, as it were, is heavily leaning towards AGW.
> >
> > so scientists change their minds based on evidence?
> After a dogma has been well established and shoved down our throats for
> decades.
Funny, Naffoff, how you didn't bother giving an example.
Funny, Naffoff, how you object to wrong answers being corrected.
Isn't that the behavior of.... well, a stupid shithead?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Nov 23, 3:41�pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Nov 23, 4:16�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 23, 3:02�pm, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > > What qualifies you to judge who is or who is not a scientist?
>>
>> > > RF
>>
>> > On the internet, my grandmother can a wagon.
>>
>> More coherence, please.
>
>wow fish.
>
>you really do need things spelled out.
>
>he claims on the internet to be a scientist. My comment shows anyone
>claim to be anything on the internet.
No. Sadly, your comment shows you to be a semi-literate cretin.
And you seem incapable of recognizing the egregious, non-literate
imbecility of what you wrote, which just makes it that much worse.
heekster
That turned every irony meter on the planet into a smoldering blob of
molten metal and charred plastic.
John Wilkins
<heek...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
Thanks. If you hadn't quoted that I would have missed it. Made my
morning.
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
You can't read for comprehension, anyway.
> I just could not stop
>laughing!.
>
That is because you are a hysterical moron.
I suppose you soiled yourself again.
>HJAHAHAHAH!!!!!
>
Pathetic.
Ron O
> Ron O wrote:
> > On Nov 23, 6:33 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> >> Ron O wrote:
> >>> On Nov 23, 6:02 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> On 23 Nov, 11:41, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
SNIP:
>
> >> From my perspective, sticking your head in the sand isn't a part of
> >> science as its conducted today.-
>
> > You are and the guys that stole the information and put out their
> > selected examples. Look in the mirror.
>
> I'm a hacker, now?
> LOL
No, worse a pathetic cracker. Reread it and come to your own
conclusions.
>
> > Talk about personal lives that are out of control. What kind of
> > personal life can a racist incompetent religious bigot have?
>
> LOL
If you had a coscience you would be crying.
>
> You have no arguments, nothing to say about the doubts cast on AGW and
> its relative contribution and the corruption that is partially exposed
> within the scientific community when it comes to GW. You are a follower,
> just another member of a borg with an identical mantra and group-think.
You are a pathetic loser that has to make stupid claims about other
people to make himself feel better. Look up projection again and
reread what you wrote.
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > Just try one more time to put up a valid argument. Tell us what the
> > argument is, what it means to you and a reference to the argument so
> > we can check it out for ourselves. Why have you given up doing that?
> > What does such a failure tell you about yourself and how you treat
> > others due to your own deficiencies?
>
> Have the article read to you. Perhaps it will help?
> Have my post read to you also, repeatedly if necessary.
So where is your valid and honest anti-evolution argument? Have you
given up and accepted defeat?
Hey, NashT did writing this post really make you feel better? Why?
It was just a piece of utter cluelessness and bogousity.
Ron Okimoto
>
> > Ron Okimoto-
Dana Tweedy
snip
> But you never explained why cabbage is harvested at a time when the
> human body needs those specific nutrients the most is not a designed
> attribute.
Cabbage is harvested when it's ready. The body doesn't need the "specific
nutrients" in cabbage any more in winter, than it does in fall, spring, or
summer. Moreover, cabbages have been bred by humans for human uses.
There's nothing to suggest that they were "designed" by a supernatural being
to be more nutritious in the winter.
>
> Why is that?
Because it's your own bizarre fantasy.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Are you still using plastic ones? They don't hold up against even one
milliRay. You need to get yourself one of the new Adamatium ones, with the
heavy illogic filter.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snip
>
> I stopped reading at "respectable science" part. I just could not stop
> laughing!.
>
> HJAHAHAHAH!!!!!
Why are you so proud of exhibiting ADHD symptoms?
DJT
Caranx latus
So "my grandmother can a wagon" means "anyone can claim to be anything"?
My. Grandmother. Can. A. Wagon. Nope... still not seeing it.
Perhaps you simply aren't perceptive enough to realize that if your
semi-aborted phrase was part of some expression, that I didn't recognize it.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>I stopped reading at "respectable science" part. I just could not stop
>laughing!.
>
>HJAHAHAHAH!!!!!
guess he uses prayer to get on the net instead of a scientist invented
computer
>
magicus
Thanks, I thought that it was you...
ciao,
f
--
aa #2301
"...The word that separates that which is dead from that which is
living....In the beginning was the word and that word was...CHOICE"
-- Tom Robbins (SLWW)
Caranx latus
> On Nov 23, 4:30 pm, "Mike Dworetsky"
<snip>
>> How ya doing with that "There are cabbages, therefore goddidit" effort?
>
> But you never explained why cabbage is harvested at a time when the
> human body needs those specific nutrients the most is not a designed
> attribute.
>
> Why is that?
Your claim is that cabbages are designed to meet human needs, right? (I
have to confess that I missed where you actually supported that claim,
by the way, and would appreciate a link to the appropriate post. I'm
sure that you would agree that the burden of proof for this claim is
ultimately yours.)
Cabbage *is* a designed food crop. Its characteristics are what they are
because artificial selection by man shaped the plant into a variety of
forms that have better food value than the original wild plant (Brassica
oleracea). As a result, humans have produced cabbage, broccoli,
cauliflower and others over the course of several millenia.
B. oleracea is a biennial plant, and stores nutrients over the winter in
its leaves so that it has the necessary energy to flower in its second
year. The vegetables that derive from the wild stock are harvested after
their first year, when presumably the plants have stored significant
amounts of nutrients into their leaves.
If B. oleracea is designed for man, then surely all biennial plants are
similarly designed and for similar reasons, aren't they? You're always
going on about common design, after all. Many forms of mullein are
biennial, and none of them appear to have any use to humans that depend
on their storage of nutrients in their leaves for winter survival.
heekster
wrote:
>In article <doamg552j8ualn9nc...@4ax.com>, heekster
i really don't know what's wrong with that boy.
Lewy body dementia, possibly.
heekster
I had one but had to give it up.
I kept getting cut, when the little blades would pop out, after
adman's posts.
Walter Bushell
> In message
> <f9e14e3a-7c93-4598...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
> >On the internet, my grandmother can a wagon.
>
> If an Adman gran can can a wagon, how many wagons can an Adman gran can?
She'd can as much as an Aman gran can,
If an Adman gran could can wagan.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Walter Bushell
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@bresnan.net> wrote:
I prefer the Adamantine irony meter.
Mike Dworetsky
Caranx latus gave you a pretty detailed explanation of that, so there is no
need to repeat it.
So how about you now answer my question about the "Pravda" alien, instead of
side-stepping the issue? You presented it as a challenge to science. Let's
see you wriggle out of this one. Go back to that thread (you vanished
pretty fast when it was pointed out that it was published in the April 1st
issue, among other problems) and defend your original statements, or show
where the skeptics are going wrong.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
ooopsie...
On the internet my grandmother can say she is a wagon.
there.
All-Seeing-I
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:16:35 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I> and on the internet you pretend you know science.
>
> imagine that
And you can pretend to be a scientist
All-Seeing-I
[\]
> Do you think Christianity is demonstrated nonsense if one
> televangelist is shown to be corrupt or otherwise decadent? I should
> hope not; but you are quick enough to jump on this.
>
> Kermit
When more then 90% of them are corrupt or otherwise decadent by
constantly begging for money on television, then, Yes. They turn
Christianity into demonstrated nonsense. Every time they get on
television and brag about the church's assets and how many air planes
they have, then yes, turn Christianity into demonstrated nonsense.
Every time they stop the truth of God they turn Christianity into
demonstrated nonsense.
Jesus sent his disciples out and specifically told them not to take a
bag or a weapon (stick) and NOT to beg for money.
He was of the opinion that if what they were going to teach was worth
anything then the people they were teaching would provide for their
needs.
Dishonesty in science can receive a pardon. But those that teach
falsehoods about God and use the name of Jesus as a cash cow never
will. They have their reward already and will be the first to feel
God's wrath on the last day of time as we know it.
Luke 10:4-12
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Nov 23, 3:02 pm, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 23, 8:51 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 23, 1:00 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 23, 1:50 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 23, 12:21 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:16:53 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>
> > > > > > <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >On Nov 23, 8:31 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >> those of us who actually do science for a living...
>
> > > > > > >Which does not include you.
>
> > > > > > >Good bye
>
> > > > > > really? i'm employed by a materials science company as an engineer.
>
> > > > > more like as a gate gard with a computer.
>
> > > > > I do hope you are not armed.
>
> > > > > > you? you wash dishes at perkins. and pretend you're a scientist
>
> > > > > > good luck with that
>
> > > > > You are too stupid to be a scientist
>
> > > > > God Hating Gate Guard
>
> > > > real scientists are doing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > the real scientists op the world reading TO must get quite a laugh at
> > > wf3d claiming to do what they can do.
>
>
> > As someone who is involved in scientific research, and who publishes
> > his findings in academic journals, I consider myself to be a
> > scientist. So do other scientists working in my field, so do the
> > administrators of the museums and universities where I do my research,
> > and so do the makers of TV programmes looking for scientific input
> > relevant to my field.
>
> > I haven't read any posts by w3d which imply that he is claiming
> > anything he can't do - in rather stark contrast to the idiotic bombast
> > coming from you.
>
> > What qualifies you to judge who is or who is not a scientist?
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
..but unlike your grandmother, I can simply ask anyone who doubts my
credentials to google "Richard Forrest plesiosaur". It will bring up
many hits, some of which refer to my published work.
Unlike you, I am not hiding behind a pseudonym. Mind you, given the
dishonest garbage you post I can understand why you would want to keep
your identity hidden.
By the way, you haven't answered my question: What qualifies you to
judge who is or who is not a scientist?
RF
RF
All-Seeing-I
wrote:
> On Nov 23, 6:20 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> > How about that? It is obvious that politics and group think have a
> > tremendous role to play in science and the parallels one can draw from
> > this with the "science" of evolution are self evident.
>
> > Enjoy
>
> that you are either (1) delusional and paranoid, to see conspiracies
> on the part of evolutionary biologists, or (2) a liar.
>
> On further reflection, I would say the choices are not mutually
> exclusive.
>
> However, if you have some evidence of such a conspiracy, you should
> post it. Incompetent attempts at snide innuendo have been your sole
> contribution around here for a long time, but maybe you actually have
> something this time?
>
> Heh. Didn't think so.
>
> Chris
I dunno Chris. Looking from the outside in; It does appear at times
that science and the ToE have been hijacked and are being used by
organized atheists or some other entity that is strong enough to
influence the mass media to discredit religion.
Even many of you have read some of the utter garbage reporting on
evolution and have said it is nothing more then junk journalism. But
anyone with intelligence understands that if they repeat the lies
often enough it becomes as if it were truth.
Which actually discredits science as well as religion.
Dakota
The ToE is not an attack on religion. It is science, pure and simple.
Many scientists in the field are weary of defending the ToE against
creationists and IDers whose religious motivations are painfully
obvious. They are right to express their displeasure with their
attackers and the media picks up on it. That some of them are atheists
isn't really the point.
There are also some atheists who draw attention to the harm that
religion causes in society. If religious organizations don't want to
hear the criticism, they should clean up their acts.
All-Seeing-I
All of the original created B. oleracea are good for the human body
during winter. Cabbage is simply a variation of B. oleracea.
Let's look at just ONE vitamin in B. oleracea; which is rich in other
essential nutrients as well.
Some (notably brussels sprouts and broccoli) contain high levels of
sinigrin
Sinigrinis a glucosinolate which belongs to the family of glucosides
found in some plants of the Brassica family such as brussels sprouts,
broccoli and the seeds of black mustard to name but a few....
which may help prevent bowel cancerColorectal cancer
In relation to winter, another nutrient cabbage posses a lot of is
Vitamin C 32.6mg 54% of daily requirement is just a cup.
A study earlier this year conducted at Addenbrooke's Hospital, the
University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine (1), has
demonstrated that vitamin C can help protect against both for
respiratory infections and cardiovascular disease.
The researchers monitored 96 men and women aged 65-74 years living in
their own homes who consumed between 65mg and 90 mg of vitamin C every
day. The results showed that vitamin C levels were positively
associated with a reduction in respiratory infections - the people who
consumed the most vitamin C experienced significantly fewer chest
complaints. The researchers also found that an additional 60mg of
vitamin C could reduce the risk of heart disease by ten per cent.
A further randomised double-blind trial conducted at Huddersfield
University (2) came to the same conclusions. Fifty-seven elderly
patients admitted to hospital with acute respiratory infections
(bronchitis and bronchopneumonia) were split into two groups - the
first to receive a daily 200 mg tablet of vitamin C, and the second
group to receive a placebo tablet.
This relatively modest oral dose of vitamin C led to a significant
increase in plasma and white cell vitamin C concentration - even in
those patients suffering from acute respiratory infections! Needless
to say, those patients who received vitamin C supplements fared
significantly better than those who just received the placebo tablet.
http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2371/2
http://www.internethealthlibrary.com/Health-problems/Cold%20Flu%20-%20researchDiet&Lifestyle.htm