Author Topic: Doesn't do the Math, Everyone got it Wrong... now censoring Science? (Read 945 times)

Nakhui · « **on:** February 20, 2004, 08:19:57 AM »

What's with the liberals?

Not only did the US Intelligence community mislead President to think there were WMD in IRAQ.

Well, the GAO also mislead him President on the medicare costs associated with his "economic" policies.

Well gee!

Now it seems that prominent scientists and Nobel prize winners are also misleading our President.

President Bush's administration distorts scientific findings and seeks to manipulate experts' advice to avoid information that runs counter to its political beliefs, a private organization of scientists asserted on Wednesday.

[Bush wouldn't do THAT! He's NEVER DISTORTED THE FACTS... NEVER...NEVER... NEVER!! It's the other people who lie to him! He's an honest man! He served in the ANG! Really he did!]

F. Sherwood Rowland, a Nobel prize winner for his studies of ozone in the atmosphere, was particularly critical of the administration's approach to climate change.

He said the consensus of scientific opinion about global warming is being ignored and that government reports have been censored to remove views not in tune with Bush's politics.

A 2003 report that the administration sought changes in an Environmental Protection Agency climate study, including deletion of a 1,000-year temperature record and removal of reference to a study that attributed some of global warming to human activity.

• A delay in an EPA report on mercury pollution from some power plants.

• A charge that the administration pressed the Centers for Disease Control to end a project called "Programs that Work," which found sex education programs that did not insist only on abstinence were still effective.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/19/scientists.bush.ap/index.html

HEY YOU LIBERALS!

STOP SCREWING WITH THE PRESIDENT AND MAKING HIM LOOK STUPID!

IT's NOT HIS FAULT OTHER PEOPLE LIE TO HIM!

IT'S THE LIBERALS and their DIRTY TRICKS!

Sabre · « **Reply #1 on:** February 20, 2004, 09:26:47 AM »

Global warming is the biggest piece of junk science ever invented, and only serves to give climatologists job security. Every voice that has spoken against it, to point out the poor science and shoddy statistical distortions, has been viciously attacked by those who benefit most from continued panic funding of ever-more obtuse computer modeling of this non-existent threat. Look at it this way:

Senator (to climatologist): We've heard that global warming might be a problem. Do you think it would be worth spending $2 Billion over the next decade to study the problem further?

Climatologist (presently unfunded): Sir, it is essential to the survival of the human race that we do so!

Senator: Right! Do you think $2 billion will be enough?

Nakhui · « **Reply #2 on:** February 20, 2004, 09:45:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sabre
Global warming is the biggest piece of junk science ever invented, and only serves to give climatologists job security. Every voice that has spoken against it, to point out the poor science and shoddy statistical distortions, has been viciously attacked by those who benefit most from continued panic funding of ever-more obtuse computer modeling of this non-existent threat. Look at it this way:

Senator (to climatologist): We've heard that global warming might be a problem. Do you think it would be worth spending $2 Billion over the next decade to study the problem further?

Climatologist (presently unfunded): Sir, it is essential to the survival of the human race that we do so!

Senator: Right! Do you think $2 billion will be enough?

Since you explained it that way...all that science data recording the ever expanding hole in the ozone... the increased climate temperatures... the increased polution... the dieing of forests, life in streams, bays, lakes....etc..

Yep - that all sounds like junk science.

It must be greed which motivates scientists.... Brilliant arguement... just reduce everyone's motivation to something banal and it all makes sense!

I believe now!

Of course... scientists don't make as much money as say a CEO of Enron, Texico, Dupont, ADM.... They make what on average about 56k compared to 1 to 2 million a year for a top CEO?

Please name one 2 billion dollar research grant ever given out by Congress for the study of global warming.

Go ahead! You seem to know so much about it.

SLO · « **Reply #3 on:** February 20, 2004, 10:12:56 AM »

rather spend 2 billion on clean air instead of 2 billion on guns and tanks....

Ripsnort · « **Reply #4 on:** February 20, 2004, 10:16:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nakhui
Since you explained it that way...all that science data recording the ever expanding hole in the ozone...
Go ahead! You seem to know so much about it.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/coldscience/aozone92000.htm

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast12dec_1.htm

http://www.epa.gov/air/aqtrnd01/ozone.html

Another liberal PNW3D!

Ripsnort · « **Reply #5 on:** February 20, 2004, 10:17:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SLO
rather spend 2 billion on clean air instead of 2 billion on guns and tanks....

Yeah, then when a barbaric muslim extremist cleric detonates a suitcase nuke, you can say "...but the air WAS clean!"

Frogm4n · « **Reply #6 on:** February 20, 2004, 10:46:31 AM »

and that crazy extremeist will be from georgia..

Frogm4n · « **Reply #7 on:** February 20, 2004, 10:47:13 AM »

Oh and how will a 2billion dollar plane going to stop a suitcase bomb rip?

Thrawn · « **Reply #8 on:** February 20, 2004, 10:50:14 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sabre
Global warming is the biggest piece of junk science ever invented, and only serves to give climatologists job security.

Got your tin foil hat on? That's just as bad as chemtrial, and the moon landings being faked.

Torque · « **Reply #9 on:** February 20, 2004, 10:56:35 AM »

"Three years after the Montreal Protocol established a phase-out program for CFCs. Concentrations of CFCs have started to decline.

"The ozone hole isn't going to go away for a long time," he said. "This is because the lifetimes of CFCs and HCFCs and halons are so long. We might be back to 1979 levels sometime around 2050 or so."

Go......team!

Sabre · « **Reply #10 on:** February 20, 2004, 11:16:49 AM »

Nakui, for starters you can look up the work of Soon and Baliunas, which shows that there is far better statistical and historical correlation between sun spot cycles and global temperatures than between CO2 levels and global temperatures. Soon and Baliunas confirmed that from 800 to 1300 A.D., average temperatures in many regions worldwide were 2 to 4 degrees or more higher than the allegedly sweltering 20th century. It’s referred to as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), and the extra warmth made life better, not worse. It is not only the arcane techniques of paleoclimatology, such as testing core samples of glacial ice for radioisotopes, that testify to the MWP, but history—such as people’s contemporary accounts of what they grew in their fields.

Why has the hypothesis of global warming persisted? Patrick J. Michaels—a climatologist, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, and author of The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air About Global Warming -- puts it this way: “No one in Washington gets large grants by saying something isn’t a problem. Meanwhile, the $10 billion thrown at climate modeling research in the last 15 years was wasted.” (Not all on one grant, but on many grants and programs).

Thomas Kuhn’s thinking from The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: "Scientists have created a global-warming paradigm for themselves that benefits them—as a cause and as a livelihood. They won’t easily be dissuaded from it."

He further goes on to state that scientists tend to resist new information that upsets their paradigm till a new paradigm from a new generation finally supersedes it. In the meantime, when their hypotheses don’t work out, it’s typical to see them come up with more and more complicated explanations and lash out personally at their critics. We've seen it happen throughout history, as far back in time as Gallieo's. The same thing happens to scientists who question the theory of evolution, for example (but let's not go there now). Just as it happened here, when I questioned Nakui's belief in global warming.

MJHerman · « **Reply #11 on:** February 20, 2004, 11:21:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yeah, then when a barbaric muslim extremist cleric detonates a suitcase nuke, you can say "...but the air WAS clean!"

Assuming, of course, that such barbaric muslim extremist cleric actually has such a nuke....

Torque · « **Reply #12 on:** February 20, 2004, 11:26:21 AM »

"He further goes on to state that scientists tend to resist new information that upsets their paradigm till a new paradigm from a new generation finally supersedes it. In the meantime, when their hypotheses don’t work out, it’s typical to see them come up with more and more complicated explanations and lash out personally at their critics."

Oh geewiz where have we seen that recently?

muckmaw · « **Reply #13 on:** February 20, 2004, 11:40:47 AM »

Does'nt one volcani eruption due more damage to the Ozone Layer than the entire human race has done since it's birth?

I remember reading this somewhere, but I cannot recall.

Sabre · « **Reply #14 on:** February 20, 2004, 12:13:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by muckmaw
Does'nt one volcani eruption due more damage to the Ozone Layer than the entire human race has done since it's birth?

I remember reading this somewhere, but I cannot recall.

As do I, Muck, or something similar. The quote I remember is that the eruption of Krackatoa (forgive my spelling of the name) produced more greenhouse gasses than all the automobiles to date. Easy enough to find out. USGS site should have some info on volcanic eruptions, I'd suspect.