An apt quote!!!

QUOTE: "If scientists say they are 100% sure, or that they are
absolutely certain about the cause and effect and ignore variables which
might show that they could be wrong, they are practicing junk science.

Junk science happens when scientists believe something based on just
some of what they see."

Nancy Salvato

April 22, 2008

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2726

The above sounds like a lot of "scientists" to me!

An apt quote!!!


QUOTE: "If scientists say they are 100% sure, or that they are
absolutely certain about the cause and effect and ignore variables
which might show that they could be wrong, they are practicing junk
science.
Junk science happens when scientists believe something based on just
some of what they see."



Nancy Salvato

April 22, 2008

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2726







The above sounds like a lot of "scientists" to me!

On Apr 23, 7:25 am, "0NBZ0" <0N...@doooooooooooooooodoooooooooo.com
wrote:
An apt quote!!!

QUOTE: "If scientists say they are 100% sure, or that they are
absolutely certain about the cause and effect and ignore variables
which might show that they could be wrong, they are practicing junk
science.

Junk science happens when scientists believe something based on just
some of what they see."

Nancy Salvato

April 22, 2008

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2726

The above sounds like a lot of "scientists" to me!

Very Very True
CO2 increases are caused by Global temperature increase
The recent Global temperature decrease will show in the
2008 CO2 data.

On Apr 23, 7:25 am, "0NBZ0" <0N...@doooooooooooooooodoooooooooo.com
wrote:





An apt quote!!!

QUOTE: "If scientists say they are 100% sure, or that they are
absolutely certain about the cause and effect and ignore variables which
might show that they could be wrong, they are practicing junk science.

Junk science happens when scientists believe something based on just
some of what they see."

Nancy Salvato

April 22, 2008

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2726

The above sounds like a lot of "scientists" to me!

Very Very True
CO2  increases are caused by Global temperature increase
The recent Global temperature decrease will show in the
2008 CO2 data.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

One way to spot "junk science", or junk arguments in general, is
a failure to acknowledge the opposition- A. McIntire

neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 24, 9:01 pm, "alanmc95...@yahoo.com" <alanmc95...@yahoo.com
wrote:

One way to spot "junk science", or junk arguments in general, is
a failure to acknowledge the opposition- A. McIntire

And since the round earthers fail to acknowledge the flat earth
arguments, that must mean that the round earth theory must be junk,
right?

Didn't science prove the earth was round?

Global warming is like a flat
earth.... a hypothesis, until science proves it one way or the other.

On Apr 24, 9:01 pm, "alanmc95...@yahoo.com" <alanmc95...@yahoo.com
wrote:

One way to spot "junk science", or junk arguments in general, is
a failure to acknowledge the opposition- A. McIntire

And since the round earthers fail to acknowledge the flat earth
arguments, that must mean that the round earth theory must be junk,
right?

neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 25, 11:59 am, Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-
Dog.com> wrote:
neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 24, 9:01 pm, "alanmc95...@yahoo.com" <alanmc95...@yahoo.com
wrote:
One way to spot "junk science", or junk arguments in general, is
a failure to acknowledge the opposition- A. McIntire
And since the round earthers fail to acknowledge the flat earth
arguments, that must mean that the round earth theory must be junk,
right?
Didn't science prove the earth was round?

No, it was observed long before the scientific method was developed.

It was found with science to be round.

Either when we took a picture from space or before.

Global warming is like a flat
earth.... a hypothesis, until science proves it one way or the other.

It's not warming.... in the 1970's we were hearing about an ice age
from the same kind of sources.

This just indicates that you don't understand how science works.
Science doesn't prove anything; evidence does that. Scientific
theories are created to make sense of the evidence. There is always
uncertainty in science, which people like you use to try and tear down
the advances in understanding that have been made. You want to throw
out the consensus of the experts in the field because you don't like
the answer. Well, guess what. Science works towards answers that are
accurate, whether you find them palatable or not.

But I wasn't the one that suggested the earth being flat was a lack of
scientific information.

As to balance of evidence; every national science organization, every
international science organization, every relevant professional
organization, and even EXXON agrees with the IPCC assessment. When

They all though the universe was static, until one guy took a few
photographs of the stars moving away from each other.

you can find a single scientific body of national or international
standing that disagrees with the IPCC, you just might have something.
But as it stands, I'm sitting with a straight flush, and you've got a

Bluffing your hand only works if your smarter than what you're fucking with.

2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, mixed suits. And claiming that there's actually a
conspiracy among the entire worlds scientific community is so
intellectually vacuous that being a young earth creationist would be a
step up.

You called it a conspiracy, I call it a vacuous political movement.

On Apr 25, 11:59 am, Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-
Dog.com> wrote:
neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 24, 9:01 pm, "alanmc95...@yahoo.com" <alanmc95...@yahoo.com
wrote:
One way to spot "junk science", or junk arguments in general, is
a failure to acknowledge the opposition- A. McIntire
And since the round earthers fail to acknowledge the flat earth
arguments, that must mean that the round earth theory must be junk,
right?
Didn't science prove the earth was round?

No, it was observed long before the scientific method was developed.

Global warming is like a flat
earth.... a hypothesis, until science proves it one way or the other.

This just indicates that you don't understand how science works.
Science doesn't prove anything; evidence does that. Scientific
theories are created to make sense of the evidence. There is always
uncertainty in science, which people like you use to try and tear down
the advances in understanding that have been made. You want to throw
out the consensus of the experts in the field because you don't like
the answer. Well, guess what. Science works towards answers that are
accurate, whether you find them palatable or not.

As to balance of evidence; every national science organization, every
international science organization, every relevant professional
organization, and even EXXON agrees with the IPCC assessment. When

you can find a single scientific body of national or international
standing that disagrees with the IPCC, you just might have something.
But as it stands, I'm sitting with a straight flush, and you've got a

2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, mixed suits. And claiming that there's actually a
conspiracy among the entire worlds scientific community is so
intellectually vacuous that being a young earth creationist would be a
step up.

On Apr 25, 11:59 am, Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-
Dog.com> wrote:
neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 24, 9:01 pm, "alanmc95...@yahoo.com" <alanmc95...@yahoo.com
wrote:

One way to spot "junk science", or junk arguments in general, is
a failure to acknowledge the opposition- A. McIntire

And since the round earthers fail to acknowledge the flat earth
arguments, that must mean that the round earth theory must be junk,
right?

Didn't science prove the earth was round?

No, it was observed long before the scientific method was developed.

Global warming is like a flat
earth.... a hypothesis, until science proves it one way or the other.

This just indicates that you don't understand how science works.
Science doesn't prove anything; evidence does that. Scientific
theories are created to make sense of the evidence. There is always
uncertainty in science, which people like you use to try and tear down
the advances in understanding that have been made. You want to throw
out the consensus of the experts in the field because you don't like
the answer. Well, guess what. Science works towards answers that are
accurate, whether you find them palatable or not.

As to balance of evidence; every national science organization, every
international science organization, every relevant professional
organization, and even EXXON agrees with the IPCC assessment. When
you can find a single scientific body of national or international
standing that disagrees with the IPCC, you just might have something.
But as it stands, I'm sitting with a straight flush, and you've got a
2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, mixed suits. And claiming that there's actually a
conspiracy among the entire worlds scientific community is so
intellectually vacuous that being a young earth creationist would be a
step up.

neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 25, 11:59 am, Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-
Dog.com> wrote:
neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 24, 9:01 pm, "alanmc95...@yahoo.com" <alanmc95...@yahoo.com
wrote:

One way to spot "junk science", or junk arguments in general, is
a failure to acknowledge the opposition- A. McIntire

And since the round earthers fail to acknowledge the flat earth
arguments, that must mean that the round earth theory must be junk,
right?

Didn't science prove the earth was round?

No, it was observed long before the scientific method was developed.

Global warming is like a flat
earth.... a hypothesis, until science proves it one way or the other.

This just indicates that you don't understand how science works.
Science doesn't prove anything; evidence does that. Scientific
theories are created to make sense of the evidence. There is always
uncertainty in science, which people like you use to try and tear down
the advances in understanding that have been made. You want to throw
out the consensus of the experts in the field because you don't like
the answer. Well, guess what. Science works towards answers that are
accurate, whether you find them palatable or not.

As to balance of evidence; every national science organization, every
international science organization, every relevant professional
organization, and even EXXON agrees with the IPCC assessment. When
you can find a single scientific body of national or international
standing that disagrees with the IPCC, you just might have something.
But as it stands, I'm sitting with a straight flush, and you've got a
2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, mixed suits. And claiming that there's actually a
conspiracy among the entire worlds scientific community is so
intellectually vacuous that being a young earth creationist would be a
step up.

You should quote where somebody claimed a conspiracy if you
comment on it.

GW "science" is far from "accurate", air temperatures near the surface
can vary over large ranges even when the same amount of energy is involved,
and only idiots or agenda driven nuts would place extreme confidence in
the accuracy of averaged and rounded data with results within a one unit
spread.

Change your userID, you seem opinionated.

neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 26, 3:24 am, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 25, 11:59 am, Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-
Dog.com> wrote:
neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 24, 9:01 pm, "alanmc95...@yahoo.com" <alanmc95...@yahoo.com
wrote:

One way to spot "junk science", or junk arguments in general, is
a failure to acknowledge the opposition- A. McIntire

And since the round earthers fail to acknowledge the flat earth
arguments, that must mean that the round earth theory must be junk,
right?

Didn't science prove the earth was round?

No, it was observed long before the scientific method was developed.

Global warming is like a flat
earth.... a hypothesis, until science proves it one way or the other.

This just indicates that you don't understand how science works.
Science doesn't prove anything; evidence does that. Scientific
theories are created to make sense of the evidence. There is always
uncertainty in science, which people like you use to try and tear down
the advances in understanding that have been made. You want to throw
out the consensus of the experts in the field because you don't like
the answer. Well, guess what. Science works towards answers that are
accurate, whether you find them palatable or not.

As to balance of evidence; every national science organization, every
international science organization, every relevant professional
organization, and even EXXON agrees with the IPCC assessment. When
you can find a single scientific body of national or international
standing that disagrees with the IPCC, you just might have something.
But as it stands, I'm sitting with a straight flush, and you've got a
2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, mixed suits. And claiming that there's actually a
conspiracy among the entire worlds scientific community is so
intellectually vacuous that being a young earth creationist would be a
step up.

You should quote where somebody claimed a conspiracy if you
comment on it.

Your exact words were "massive conspiracy by retards who are so
egotistical as to believe the public is less than literate."
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/629e181e1ee930e3

But was my words in this thread?

Gosh, did I write that, it is great, it represents exactly what
I think, although the "massive conspiracy" is different than the usual
planning of a conspiracy, rather than all participants trying to harm
others, they all think they are "saving the planet".

Let's read that again;

http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/629e181e1ee930e3

Posted here in case somebody wants to read it without using the
browser;

On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 14:12:55 +1000, "Bonzo" <boo...@optusnt.com.au
wrote:

Vol.15, No. 2, Spring 1992
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus
Richard S. Lindzen

Thanks for posting that, it is amazing that this charade
has gone on so long, and from all appearances the media and the general
public is still wondering what all the fuss is about.

There will no doubt be big reactions once it is clear that
it is a massive conspiracy by retards who are so egotistical as to
believe the public is less than literate.

And the truth is even worse than Dr. Lindzen states,
because the "average global temperature" is totally meaningless.

The great bulk of the ocean is cold, very cold, and it
would take an enormous amount of thermal energy to raise all the mass of
the ocean to 15 C.

And the great mass of the solid Earth is hot, very hot, and
the small amount of mass in the atmosphere and the thin layer of the
surface that is changed daily or seasonally by solar radiation can't
possibly be significant in the total energy contained.

All the talk of an average annual global temperature is
just plain unadulterated bullshit, spread by retards and gullible fools
who have a short spiritual experience in thinking they are saving the
planet as if they were the hero in a catastrophe movie.
[unquote]

_____________________________________________________________________
Now, if any of the AGW nuts or the leftists posing as AGW nuts
want to point out anything in my above quote that is far from the
truth, please do.____________________________________________________

GW "science" is far from "accurate", air temperatures near the surface
can vary over large ranges even when the same amount of energy is involved,
and only idiots or agenda driven nuts would place extreme confidence in
the accuracy of averaged and rounded data with results within a one unit
spread.

I have confidence in the scientific method and the process of peer
review. Not perfect confidence (science doesn't work like that), but
certainly enough to warrant taking out some metaphorical insurance.

I have confidence in science too, once it matures, maybe AGW even
has more basis for belief than aether theory, but it can be just as wrong,
or more likely, almost wrong or only a tiny bit right, OR THE OPPOSITE.

Change your userID, you seem opinionated.

Fool, yours fits like a glove.

Yours doesn't, unless you straddle the fence a little more obvious.

Look, last August I experienced the longest spell of above 90
temperatures in 80 years, the driest month for the region, but not a
single day was within 6 degrees of the record high for any day of the
month.

When the articles written are given a title before the data
is presented, then they become agenda driven, and authors working for
a man who has made his preferences known, they will pacify him in order
to hold their job and keep the peace.

A conspiracy by any name you want to give it, sheep with a
known sheepherder.

Just how retarded do people have to be to think they are
saving the planet. Weeds may grow if you don't plant grass,
but how much grass can you plant and keep mowed?

On Apr 26, 3:24 am, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 25, 11:59 am, Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-
Dog.com> wrote:
neutral...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 24, 9:01 pm, "alanmc95...@yahoo.com" <alanmc95...@yahoo.com
wrote:

One way to spot "junk science", or junk arguments in general, is
a failure to acknowledge the opposition- A. McIntire

And since the round earthers fail to acknowledge the flat earth
arguments, that must mean that the round earth theory must be junk,
right?

Didn't science prove the earth was round?

No, it was observed long before the scientific method was developed.

Global warming is like a flat
earth.... a hypothesis, until science proves it one way or the other.

This just indicates that you don't understand how science works.
Science doesn't prove anything; evidence does that. Scientific
theories are created to make sense of the evidence. There is always
uncertainty in science, which people like you use to try and tear down
the advances in understanding that have been made. You want to throw
out the consensus of the experts in the field because you don't like
the answer. Well, guess what. Science works towards answers that are
accurate, whether you find them palatable or not.

As to balance of evidence; every national science organization, every
international science organization, every relevant professional
organization, and even EXXON agrees with the IPCC assessment. When
you can find a single scientific body of national or international
standing that disagrees with the IPCC, you just might have something.
But as it stands, I'm sitting with a straight flush, and you've got a
2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, mixed suits. And claiming that there's actually a
conspiracy among the entire worlds scientific community is so
intellectually vacuous that being a young earth creationist would be a
step up.

You should quote where somebody claimed a conspiracy if you
comment on it.

Your exact words were "massive conspiracy by retards who are so
egotistical as to believe the public is less than literate."
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/629e181e1ee930e3

http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/629e181e1ee930e3

Vol.15, No. 2, Spring 1992
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus
Richard S. Lindzen

GW "science" is far from "accurate", air temperatures near the surface
can vary over large ranges even when the same amount of energy is involved,
and only idiots or agenda driven nuts would place extreme confidence in
the accuracy of averaged and rounded data with results within a one unit
spread.

I have confidence in the scientific method and the process of peer
review. Not perfect confidence (science doesn't work like that), but
certainly enough to warrant taking out some metaphorical insurance.

Change your userID, you seem opinionated.

Fool, yours fits like a glove.

[tard turds flushed]