Deception by Science

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is pretty much where I stand.


I don't want to derail the debate, but IMO, we're adding what 150 MILLION new people to the planet every year. There's no way to stop these millions and millions of people from adding more and more CO2. Also, trading carbon dioxide credits - how f*cking asinine is that? Smells like a scam.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

um..

All you guys resisting the OP...where is your links?? where is your data??

all i see if a bunch of guys misunderstanding and hen pecking Rman's data..

Rman..so you are showing the co2 data from that one company (how did they get that data?) in Hawaii (near volcanoes?) shows one graph scaled for GW popularity points, is actual not worth worrying about, cause scaled a different way looks better..

so both actually tell the truth but the one is just scaled to appear alarmist to the uninitiated..(who has the money?)
<the world isn't about right or wrong anymore..It all about the money..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

>

i suppose excessive water vapor in the atmosphere would cause more weather, but if there were more vapor in the atmosphere, wouldn't it show in desert countries?

Besides..
Do you want a world with dirty cars and wastefull energy?
if its good enough to get ppl to start moderating themselves when it comes to some things..then this can be a good thing..it would make us better people..

I still want solar panels to charge my home..I wouldn't have to pay for Electric again..<Money

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

>
I would love to have an electric/hybrid, If it could pull my tool trailer all over the county..but then there is that stupid <Money> thing again..

anyone who has ever slept under a freeway would appreciate less fumes...

 

What I see RM saying is that his data doesn't really say what it says, it says what RM says it says.

That is, when you read between the rants.

 

This helps you? Nationalgeographic/Green Sahara

 

Pure BS, as anybody with a realization that you CANNOT POSSIBLY get to 80% reduction in anthropogenic carbon dioxide by practicable steps.

Nor is it impracticable to videoconference. Instead, your Greenie Pals are all flying to Cancun and other lovely conferences the world over, about every day.

Don't do what THEY do, do what they SAY.

 

The title says a lot about your bias.

Science does not deceive, only scientists can do that. There is a big difference and a big distinction.

The scientific method is not a person or group, it is a process.

Now, assuming arguendo that you found some bad guys in the scientific community, extrapolating that assumption out to conclude that all of them are the same is an unfounded stretch.

It is like saying all who are of the Moslem or Christian faith are terrorists because some of them are.

It is a logical contradiction.

Two new studies have come out that refute your rant.

For years deniers have cited to tropospheric data to essentially try to do what you try to do.

Now that a study shows the troposphere to be warming, they run somewhere else to rant.

Now that a study shows CO2 to be the greatest factor in atmospheric warming/temperature (greater than water vapor), they run somewhere else to rant.

It ain't kosher. :bugeye:

 

My thanks to this thread for a source of evidence that we have passed the peak of sanity whether you believe we have passed the peak of oil production or not.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes, yes you are.

Oh BRILLIANT! YOU "reduce" your "carbon footprint" 3% and everybody ELSE will have to compensate for YOU to get the average down to 80% reduction.
That sounds fair.

We shall see whose strong point is what.
You have yet to contribute anything other than poo-flinging.

I'll leave it up to you to verify that the United Nations has advocated 80%.
Barack Obama has advocated 80%.
The Sierra Club and National Geographic and "environmentalists" toe the line to the most extreme, most inane demands to "cut emissions 80%.

You so pompously pretend that since YOU "don't advocate '80%',"
then the very thought of an 80% reduction is unthinkable.

So much for your reading comprehension, not to mention your grasp of contemporary Green Insanity.

Work this out: I shan't bother responding to any more of your musings. I would prefer to read, and respond to people who have something substantive to say. I have not yet read anything like that from you despite considerable effort to find something.
You really need to put on a black ski mask and write "EVIL" on the front of it.
You post so much like Evil.

ciao

 

More deception by *science*:

*Science* in this context means that well-educated people are attempting to deceive and mislead you by lying, exaggerating, slight-of-hand, or other underhanded tactics, which they pretend and pass off as "science".

It is not what they pretend it is.

Here is the second example in this thread:

Haeckel's drawings

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Reproduced for over 100 years without the slightest bit of verification or thought, these silly fabrications were discredited in the very year they were first published, 1868.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html

Not to worry. Toe the *scientific* line or suffer the same fate as Wilbur and Orville Wright, as Copernicus, as Galileo.

Boy were they all *stupid*.

"Science advances, one funeral at a time." - Max Planck

 

You're consorting with the enemy just using a computer. The idea that science is deceptive is beyond assinine and so are you. If we listened to neo-conservative fundamentalist idiotlogues we would be on the slippery slide back to the dark ages.

 

yes i can believe SOME scientist tailor their data to a specific audience..yes i can believe other ppl see that data and can take it out of context to justify their own opinions..i also can see a resemblance between Rmans post and of IamJoseph's posts..(they won't stop till everyone agrees with them..)

and in my opinion, for both of them..its not whether or not they are presenting erroneuos data..it is that they won't let the reader decide for themselves..they could use a good debate class (we all could..) to learn what NOT to say..

 

"Every year, U.S. schools pay more than $8.6 billion in supplements for teachers with master's degrees, even though the idea that a higher degree makes a teacher more effective has been mostly debunked."

Education Secretary Arne Duncan said that master's degree supplements are an example of spending money on something that fails.

Ninety percent of teachers' masters degrees are in education, not subjects such as English or math, according to a study by Marguerite Roza and Raegen Miller for the Center on Reinventing Education at the University of Washington.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/11/20/1432342/economists-want-to-stop-teachers.html

Had such comments been made by the Education Secretary under George Bush, howls of derision and condescension would have emanated from every Democrat in America.

Anti-science and anti-intellectualism from the left in particular is rampant.

And Trippy pretends that he is not a leftist....

 

"English isn't your strong suit, is it."

"English isn't your strong suit, is it."

I think you should stick with moderating, *Moderator.*

"English isn't your strong suit, is it."

My ego is not the subject. The subject is misleading people with even a simple graph. The subject is science, not me. Stop trying to focus on ME, and discuss science. Discuss it with someone else.

Oh, and learn some English, would you, before showing your own condescension and pretending that I cannot write.

 

your missing the point also...if a graph can say what one wants it to say..you make yourself just as guilty, by presenting the graph in the way you want it to be seen..

as for the rest of that post..a little emotional wasn't it?

 

"English isn't your strong suit, is it."

Let's try argumentum ad extremum. It's often used in mathematics for clarity.
You look at values, say zero or infinity, and see what happens as those extreme values are approached.

You might choose to select a tiny portion of the first graph, I call it the Scary Graph, such that seasonality is reflected to make the carbon dioxide appear as if it is going up exponentially.

Six months later, you could also focus in on data showing the CO2 level to be dramatically dropping.

Which is correct? BOTH!
Which is misleading? BOTH!

It is no small feat to consider all the factors that go into data and graphs.

THAT is my point. The bigger picture.

The Scary Graph focuses things on the TOTAL CO2 concentration, irrespective of its source.

It exacerbates the scariness by showing ONLY 70 ppm.

It's far misleading now that I have exposed the deceit implicit in it.

One might think that of all the *scientists* reading this, one - just ONE - might show some backbone and courage and say, "Gee, you make a good point."

But no, political correctness has a very long tradition beginning in grade school and going through college. Conformist lockstep is hard at work here.

"Science advances one funeral at a time." - Max Planck