Global warming specialists and evolutionists.
Nashton
occur in meteorology and climate science. How much dissent has been
quashed without it ever going public, like the Anglia fiasco?
Given that most of evolutionary biology is useless as a tit on a bull,
contrary to climate change science which will cost humanity quite dearly
and requires unsurmountable change, I bet it won't even make any headlines.
Mike Dworetsky
> I wonder if the same things go on in evolutionary scientific cycles
> that occur in meteorology and climate science. How much dissent has
> been quashed without it ever going public, like the Anglia fiasco?
None, you are welcome to submit and publish any evidence for creationism
that you can come up with, but unless it can pass peer-review for a
scientific journal, it will be ignored.
>
> Given that most of evolutionary biology is useless as a tit on a bull,
> contrary to climate change science which will cost humanity quite
> dearly and requires unsurmountable change, I bet it won't even make
> any headlines.
Failing to take action on fossil fuel emissions now will have two effects:
rapidly increasing prices for coal and oil over the medium term, and rising
temperatures. If you can live with both of these, fine. But don't complain
about the "price of gas".
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
chris thompson
Ooohhhhh. Conspiracies! Better be careful, Nashton, you don't want to
attract the attention of the Illuminati! Stay out of convertibles
passing grassy knolls, that kind of thing.
Idiot.
Chris
Boikat
> I wonder if the same things go on in evolutionary scientific cycles that
> occur in meteorology and climate science. How much dissent has been
> quashed without it ever going public, like the Anglia fiasco?
I guess you'd have hack into the private e-mail accounts of
biologists to find out.
>
> Given that most of evolutionary biology is useless as a tit on a bull,
...says the willfully ignorant..
> contrary to climate change science which will cost humanity quite dearly
> and requires unsurmountable change, I bet it won't even make any headlines.
Your opinion that studying biological evolutionis useless is nothing
more than a reflection of your willful ignorance and short
sightedness. If global warming is actually occuring, studies in
biology *and* evolution will likely provide some insites on how to
deal with GW. After all, you ignorant piece of crap, what is one of
the major factors in the process of biological evolution? *The
Environment, stupid*. Now, given that the Earth had gone through
warm and cool cycles, and given the studies of those periods on
geological time, and given that many of the beginning and ends of
those cycle are also marked by *extinction events* followed by
relatively rapid diversification of species, you ignorantly proclaim
that the study of biological evolution is *worthless or irrelevant*?
You're just as much of a 'tard as Mr. Cambrian Mammal = Trilobite!
Boikat
Ilas
> I wonder if the same things go on in evolutionary scientific cycles
> that occur in meteorology and climate science. How much dissent has
> been quashed without it ever going public, like the Anglia fiasco?
East Anglia. There isn't an Anglia, just an England.
bpuharic
>I wonder if the same things go on in evolutionary scientific cycles that
>occur in meteorology and climate science. How much dissent has been
>quashed without it ever going public, like the Anglia fiasco?
gee...the creationist seeks to paint with a wide brush
why not start with basic? go ahead, moron. tell us why the earth is
the center of the solar system since evidence to the contrary could be
quashed.
why not tell us why germs dont exist, and we need to sacrifice goats
to stop disease, because evidence to the contrary is quashed
stars don't exist. they're lights from angels. evidence...well you get
the idea.
the fact is the climate change controversy shows EXACTLY how science
is self correcting. scientists have data on BOTH sides of the issue
and have published their data
evidence against evoluiton? aint none. there's as much dissent about
evoluiton as there is about the existence of atoms.
but, to a creationist, we should still be sacrificing goats. after
all, germs don't exist. evidence to the contrary has been suppressed.
>
>Given that most of evolutionary biology is useless as a tit on a bull,
>contrary to climate change science which will cost humanity quite dearly
>and requires unsurmountable change, I bet it won't even make any headlines.
you want useless?
try 'god did it'.
it's useless
it's wrong
and it kills
Ron O
> On Nov 26, 5:04 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>
> > I wonder if the same things go on in evolutionary scientific cycles that
> > occur in meteorology and climate science. How much dissent has been
> > quashed without it ever going public, like the Anglia fiasco?
>
> I guess you'd have hack into the private e-mail accounts of
> biologists to find out.
Someone tried to get into my email account last night. I woke up this
morning and I had a notice that I had exceeded the limit of attempts
to login with the wrong password.
Beats me what they expect to get unless it also gives them access to
our other account information.
Ron Okimoto
Desertphile
> I wonder if the same things go on in evolutionary scientific cycles that
> occur in meteorology and climate science. How much dissent has been
> quashed without it ever going public, like the Anglia fiasco?
Dissent in science is encouraged, and rewarded when successful.
Meanwhile, Creationism has yielded nothing of value for over one
milliin years, and Creationists have not changed their beliefs
based on evidence ever.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>I wonder if the same things go on in evolutionary scientific cycles that
>occur in meteorology and climate science. How much dissent has been
>quashed without it ever going public, like the Anglia fiasco?
What is the "Anglia fiasco" you moron?
>
>Given that most of evolutionary biology is useless as a tit on a bull,
>contrary to climate change science which will cost humanity quite dearly
>and requires unsurmountable change, I bet it won't even make any headlines.
--
Bob.
If brains were taxed, you would get a rebate.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Nashton <na...@na.ca>:
>I wonder if the same things go on in evolutionary scientific cycles that
>occur in meteorology and climate science.
Yep: Observation, hypothesis, test, modify hypothesis,
repeat.
But never mind; you wouldn't understand, since it requires
honesty and open communication.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Nashton
> Nashton wrote:
>> I wonder if the same things go on in evolutionary scientific cycles
>> that occur in meteorology and climate science. How much dissent has
>> been quashed without it ever going public, like the Anglia fiasco?
>
> None, you are welcome to submit and publish any evidence for creationism
> that you can come up with, but unless it can pass peer-review for a
> scientific journal, it will be ignored.
So if I don't think that there is any merit to the ToE, I'm a creationist?
>
>> Given that most of evolutionary biology is useless as a tit on a bull,
>> contrary to climate change science which will cost humanity quite
>> dearly and requires unsurmountable change, I bet it won't even make
>> any headlines.
>
> Failing to take action on fossil fuel emissions now will have two effects:
> rapidly increasing prices for coal and oil over the medium term, and rising
> temperatures. If you can live with both of these, fine. But don't complain
> about the "price of gas".
You're wrong.
>
Nashton
That is plain wrong. And criminal, to boot. Just for the record, whoever
is attempting this is a low-life and needs to be locked up.
Nashton
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:04:39 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Nashton <na...@na.ca>:
>
>> I wonder if the same things go on in evolutionary scientific cycles that
>> occur in meteorology and climate science.
>
> Yep: Observation, hypothesis, test, modify hypothesis,
> repeat.
And weed out dissent.
>
> But never mind; you wouldn't understand, since it requires
> honesty and open communication.
Oh I understand more about science than you would care to admit.
Nashton
Did you ever learn to capitalize letters, illiterate moron?
How do you expect your argument to have any credibility when you can't
even write?
Can you at least read, or do you have things read to you?
Mike Dworetsky
Ah, a grammar flame. Just what we all needed.
Mike Dworetsky
> Mike Dworetsky wrote:
>> Nashton wrote:
>>> I wonder if the same things go on in evolutionary scientific cycles
>>> that occur in meteorology and climate science. How much dissent has
>>> been quashed without it ever going public, like the Anglia fiasco?
>>
>> None, you are welcome to submit and publish any evidence for
>> creationism that you can come up with, but unless it can pass
>> peer-review for a scientific journal, it will be ignored.
>
> So if I don't think that there is any merit to the ToE, I'm a
> creationist?
It isn't enough just to claim that you are skeptical; ToE is totally and
generally accepted among literally millions of the world's scientists. So
if you want to replace it, you have to come up with a better model that
others will accept. So far you haven't put up.
>
>>
>>> Given that most of evolutionary biology is useless as a tit on a
>>> bull, contrary to climate change science which will cost humanity
>>> quite dearly and requires unsurmountable change, I bet it won't
>>> even make any headlines.
>>
>> Failing to take action on fossil fuel emissions now will have two
>> effects: rapidly increasing prices for coal and oil over the medium
>> term, and rising temperatures. If you can live with both of these,
>> fine. But don't complain about the "price of gas".
>
> You're wrong.
Wait and see. If I'm wrong, we will at the least save and regenerate our
rain forests and extend the life of our fossil fuel resources. If I'm
right, we will prevent a major disaster. Sure, the human race will survive
major GW, in the sense that there are always survivors. But how many
billions will die in the process?
hersheyh
> On Nov 26, 5:04 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>
> > I wonder if the same things go on in evolutionary scientific cycles that
> > occur in meteorology and climate science. How much dissent has been
> > quashed without it ever going public, like the Anglia fiasco?
>
> I guess you'd have hack into the private e-mail accounts of
> biologists to find out.
If they mention creationists or creationist students at all, the
creationists will be mocked, sneered at, laughed at, regarded as
ignorant, if not necessarily stupid, cretins who know nothing. They
will be resented as anti-science kooks who damage the entire society
with their conspiracy nuttery and anti-science progroms about teaching
evolution and any science that goes against their idiotic ideas.
Their so-called publications (which, if anything, are much rarer and
much worse than the anti-global warming deniers publications) will be
considered to be pseudoscientific crap that isn't worth the paper it's
written on.
IOW, the results there will look like what you see here.
[snip]
Stuart
> Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:04:39 -0400, the following appeared
>
> >> I wonder if the same things go on in evolutionary scientific cycles that
> >> occur in meteorology and climate science.
>
> > Yep: Observation, hypothesis, test, modify hypothesis,
> > repeat.
>
> And weed out dissent.
Where? Was Einstein weeded out?
>
>
>
> > But never mind; you wouldn't understand, since it requires
> > honesty and open communication.
>
> Oh I understand more about science than you would care to admit.
You're a legend in your own mind.
Stuart
Dave Oldridge
>I wonder if the same things go on in evolutionary scientific cycles
You are hereby invited to stop eating any agricultural products that have
been enhanced by our knowledge of evolution. That pretty much precludes
anything you didn't grow yourself from seeds more than 100 years old.
--
Dave Oldridge+
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Nov 26, 7:39 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 5:04 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > I wonder if the same things go on in evolutionary scientific cycles that
> > > occur in meteorology and climate science. How much dissent has been
> > > quashed without it ever going public, like the Anglia fiasco?
> >
> > I guess you'd have hack into the private e-mail accounts of
> > biologists to find out.
> Someone tried to get into my email account last night. I woke up this
> morning and I had a notice that I had exceeded the limit of attempts
> to login with the wrong password.
Oops! What that your account?! Sorry: I thought it was naffoff's.
Well, second time's a charm....
> Beats me what they expect to get unless it also gives them access to
> our other account information.
>
> Ron Okimoto
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:04:39 -0400, Nashton <na...@na.ca> enriched this
> group when s/he wrote:
>
> >I wonder if the same things go on in evolutionary scientific cycles that
> >occur in meteorology and climate science. How much dissent has been
> >quashed without it ever going public, like the Anglia fiasco?
> What is the "Anglia fiasco" you moron?
A series of cars make in the United Kingdon that were about as
successful as the Ford Prefect, if not more so. I cannot imagine
what the "fiasco" could apply to.
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:04:39 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Nashton <na...@na.ca>:
> >I wonder if the same things go on in evolutionary scientific cycles that
> >occur in meteorology and climate science.
> Yep: Observation, hypothesis, test, modify hypothesis,
> repeat.
>
> But never mind; you wouldn't understand, since it requires
> honesty and open communication.
He's too stupid to play Fizzbin also.
Desertphile
> Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:04:39 -0400, the following appeared
> > in talk.origins, posted by Nashton <na...@na.ca>:
> >
> >> I wonder if the same things go on in evolutionary scientific cycles that
> >> occur in meteorology and climate science.
> >
> > Yep: Observation, hypothesis, test, modify hypothesis,
> > repeat.
> And weed out dissent.
Nope: scientists encourage dissent.
> > But never mind; you wouldn't understand, since it requires
> > honesty and open communication.
> Oh I understand more about science than you would care to admit.
No evidence, therefore *DISMISSED!*
Desertphile
> So if I don't think that there is any merit to the ToE, I'm a creationist?
Not necessarilty: you could just be an ignorant uneducated retard.
So, which is it?
John Wilkins
<deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:00:53 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:04:39 -0400, Nashton <na...@na.ca> enriched this
> > group when s/he wrote:
> >
> > >I wonder if the same things go on in evolutionary scientific cycles that
> > >occur in meteorology and climate science. How much dissent has been
> > >quashed without it ever going public, like the Anglia fiasco?
>
> > What is the "Anglia fiasco" you moron?
>
> A series of cars make in the United Kingdon that were about as
> successful as the Ford Prefect, if not more so. I cannot imagine
> what the "fiasco" could apply to.
The fiasco is that, unlike the Prefect, none of them ever flew on the
way to Hogwarts.
Burkhard
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:00:53 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:04:39 -0400, Nashton <na...@na.ca> enriched this
>> group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder if the same things go on in evolutionary scientific cycles that
>>> occur in meteorology and climate science. How much dissent has been
>>> quashed without it ever going public, like the Anglia fiasco?
>
>> What is the "Anglia fiasco" you moron?
>
> A series of cars make in the United Kingdon that were about as
> successful as the Ford Prefect, if not more so. I cannot imagine
> what the "fiasco" could apply to.
>
>
bpuharic
irrelevant. i guess if you don't have an answer, this is the best you
can do.
>How do you expect your argument to have any credibility when you can't
>even write?
>
>Can you at least read, or do you have things read to you?
as i said, the creationist is panicked. so he trembles and writes
something irrelevant.
bpuharic
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:04:39 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Nashton <na...@na.ca>:
>>
>>> I wonder if the same things go on in evolutionary scientific cycles that
>>> occur in meteorology and climate science.
>>
>> Yep: Observation, hypothesis, test, modify hypothesis,
>> repeat.
>
>And weed out dissent.
any proof they did? nope
but creationism routinely tries to stop evolution from being presented
>
>>
>> But never mind; you wouldn't understand, since it requires
>> honesty and open communication.
>
>Oh I understand more about science than you would care to admit.
and we know that's true because you said it.
those of us who are scientists would disagree with you.
Glenn
<platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> Nashton wrote:
> > I wonder if the same things go on in evolutionary scientific cycles
> > been quashed without it ever going public, like the Anglia fiasco?
>
> that you can come up with, but unless it can pass peer-review for a
> scientific journal, it will be ignored.
>
>
>
> > contrary to climate change science which will cost humanity quite
> > dearly and requires unsurmountable change, I bet it won't even make
> > any headlines.
>
> rapidly increasing prices for coal and oil over the medium term, and rising
> temperatures. If you can live with both of these, fine. But don't complain
> about the "price of gas".
>
temperatures over the "medium" term?
Mike Dworetsky
I didn't claim that it would lower these prices. I said that failure to
take action would lead to rapidly increasing prices in the medium term. I
didn't specify exactly what "medium term" was, but you can take it that it
is of the order of 2-20 years, caused by the supply and demand situation.
The only reason the fuel price bubble burst last year was the economic
crisis. This recession will not last forever.
Also, at this stage, most predictions tell us that temperatures will not get
lower. Global warming will continue because too much CO2 has already been
pumped into the atmosphere adn will continue to be added. Taking action may
prevent them from rising as sharply as some scenarios predict if nothing is
done.
Ye Old One
<deser...@invalid-address.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:00:53 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:04:39 -0400, Nashton <na...@na.ca> enriched this
>> group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> >I wonder if the same things go on in evolutionary scientific cycles that
>> >occur in meteorology and climate science. How much dissent has been
>> >quashed without it ever going public, like the Anglia fiasco?
>
>> What is the "Anglia fiasco" you moron?
>
>A series of cars make in the United Kingdon that were about as
>successful as the Ford Prefect, if not more so. I cannot imagine
>what the "fiasco" could apply to.
I know someone with a restored Ford Prefect - complete with the
original working trafficators.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafficators]
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Desertphile wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:00:53 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:04:39 -0400, Nashton <na...@na.ca> enriched this
>>> group when s/he wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wonder if the same things go on in evolutionary scientific cycles that
>>>> occur in meteorology and climate science. How much dissent has been
>>>> quashed without it ever going public, like the Anglia fiasco?
>>
>>> What is the "Anglia fiasco" you moron?
>>
>> A series of cars make in the United Kingdon that were about as
>> successful as the Ford Prefect, if not more so. I cannot imagine
>> what the "fiasco" could apply to.
>>
>>
>But Ford Prefect is from somewhere near Betelgeuse, not the UK
Good point.
--
Bob.
Did you know that 1 in 4 people make up a quarter of the world's
population?
rmacfarl
"John Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:271120091219548256%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
Errh, it actually was a Ford Anglia that flew to Hogwarts. Ford
Prefect, on the other hand, flew on the Heart Of Gold...
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:10:06 -0700, Desertphile
> <deser...@invalid-address.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:00:53 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:04:39 -0400, Nashton <na...@na.ca> enriched this
> >> group when s/he wrote:
> >>
> >> >I wonder if the same things go on in evolutionary scientific cycles that
> >> >occur in meteorology and climate science. How much dissent has been
> >> >quashed without it ever going public, like the Anglia fiasco?
> >
> >> What is the "Anglia fiasco" you moron?
> >
> >A series of cars make in the United Kingdon that were about as
> >successful as the Ford Prefect, if not more so. I cannot imagine
> >what the "fiasco" could apply to.
> I know someone with a restored Ford Prefect - complete with the
> original working trafficators.
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafficators]
Way cool: I want some. I recall a Micky Mouse cartoon that showed
a large truck with trafficators.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Nashton <na...@no.ca>:
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 07:04:39 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Nashton <na...@na.ca>:
>>> I wonder if the same things go on in evolutionary scientific cycles that
>>> occur in meteorology and climate science.
>> Yep: Observation, hypothesis, test, modify hypothesis,
>> repeat.
>And weed out dissent...
....which isn't supported by evidence.
There; fixed it for you. You're welcome.
>> But never mind; you wouldn't understand, since it requires
>> honesty and open communication.
>
>Oh I understand more about science than you would care to admit.
No, I'm afraid you don't. Based on your postings, you know
almost nothing about the process of science.
Glenn
<platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 6:08 am, "Mike Dworetsky"
> > <platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> Nashton wrote:
> >>> I wonder if the same things go on in evolutionary scientific cycles
> >>> that occur in meteorology and climate science. How much dissent has
> >>> been quashed without it ever going public, like the Anglia fiasco?
>
> >> None, you are welcome to submit and publish any evidence for
> >> creationism that you can come up with, but unless it can pass
> >> peer-review for a scientific journal, it will be ignored.
>
> >>> Given that most of evolutionary biology is useless as a tit on a
> >>> bull, contrary to climate change science which will cost humanity
> >>> quite dearly and requires unsurmountable change, I bet it won't
> >>> even make any headlines.
>
> >> Failing to take action on fossil fuel emissions now will have two
> >> effects: rapidly increasing prices for coal and oil over the medium
> >> term, and rising temperatures. If you can live with both of these,
> >> fine. But don't complain about the "price of gas".
>
> > As if taking action will reduce the price of gas and lower
> > temperatures over the "medium" term?
>
> I didn't claim that it would lower these prices.
No shit, Sherlock.
> I said that failure to take action would lead to rapidly increasing prices in the medium term.
And apparently you refuse to entertain the possibility that taking
action would lead to the same or worse, although you're fine with
scaring others about the price.
snip rest of twaddle