I don't go for the second hand smoke argument either. Everyone knows
that toxicity is dose related. And, asbestos won't jump up and bite
you, you have to breathe it into your lungs and you also have to smoke
to get cancer from it.
A bit sensasionalist. I don't think that it's actually 'scientists' who are
transposing data incorrectly (sometimes several times according to that
article). It seems instead to be the "US government's Global Historical
Climate Network" - government - *not* scientists.
As well as climate change, passive smoking and asbestos denial Booker is a
proven liar with very lax journalistic standards and a creationist to boot.
His anti-science crap sells newspapers and books though. Frank no doubt
finds him an intellectual hero.
Non-sequitur, I am afraid.
It isn't an "argument." It is scientific fact. Does one argue about
1+2=2? The existence of hats, perhaps?
Two out of two. Care to go for a trifecta? Tell us what you think
about spontaneous generation.
I am not surprised you posted the link you did. I consider the source.
This may be the worst scandal in scientific history, but unfortunately
not the first:
"Lysenkoism is used metaphorically to describe the manipulation
or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a
predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias,
often related to social or political objectives"
Anyone that disagreed with Lysenko simply disappeared. With
this scandal, you just get public ridicule and lose your job.
Politics needs to butt out of science.
There is a lot of evidence out there that Global
Warming is bunk. You don't have to rely on Frank's
Then again, if you truly believe something as
an axion, then any evidence to your belief system will
just amount to heresy.
Makes discussing Global Warming akin to discussing
Religion or Politics. Always turns out bad. Note the
fury "some" have when you disagree with them over
such things. Makes this not much of a fun subject
anymore. Lysenkoism does have to apply.
Have you heard from Billy? I was just wondering what happened to him a
few days ago.
I worked for government for 40 years in one capacity or another and I
spent a lot of that time fighting bullshit and propaganda of one sort or
another. All governments try to spread it as does every money making
commercial enterprise. It goes by the name of 'policy' for government
and 'advertising' from commerce.
Before our Public Service took on the politicised form favoured by the
US, it was the duty of people such as myself to provide advice "without
fear or favour". That meant we were there to protect the interests of
the citizens of this country and not there just to serve government whim.
The perpetuation of bullshit, and especially bullshit based on ignorance
or self interest, gets right up my left nostril. Climate Change denial
No there isn't. There is a lot of propaganda.
The matter is treated as faith in many circles sadly. That is how so many
people accept the denialist bumf because they will not look at the evidence
but rely on so-called experts who tell them what they want to hear. Neither
Booker nor the clown he quoted are any kind of expert but they get a big
hearing because their message is palatable.
Lysenkoism is a classic example of politicians (Stalin in this case)
commanding that scientists act the way the politician wants to fulfil a
certain political objective. The State doesn't do that quite as blatantly
now but allows big business to take the lead. Sadly too many politicians
meekly follow on and swallow the lies from the fossil fuel industry because
it is convenient to their own political leanings, rather than go to the
source and ask what does the science really say.
Our grandchildren will wear the consequences. But the current mob in power
don't see that as a problem, as to look to the future requires
statesmanship, all we get is politics.
Actually, Global Warming comes off like that to me. I
have a strong science background as an engineer and
all my alarm bell are going off, especially the part
about not accepting any dissenting opinion and persecuting
those that do. Just look at all the name calling on this
group towards those that dissent.
True. Has to do with who waxes whose hand the most. Big
business could not get away with this without even
bigger government. The two feed off each other. And
the public suffers.
Ice core sample have shown that CO2 emission have
always occurs "after" a rise in global temperature.
Be careful about calling dissenting opinion "lies".
And the Global warming crowd has been caught fudging
and out right fabricating in a number of instances.
Sea levels are not rising; Pacific atolls are not
being covered up; ocean data shows the Earth is
cooling slights over the past 10 or so years.
Lysenkoism sound to me exactly like the tactics the Global Warming
crowd is using, including the use of extremist religious terms
like "Denier". And you lose your government funding and get
called all kinds of names. Fortunately you don't disappear,
A lot of this non-sense has to do with never ending government
funding to prove a government viewpoint. Another example
of this is funding to prove serum cholesterol and arteriosclerosis
are somehow related, even though there is no evidence of such
in autopsy studies. Look at all the damage the drugs (Statins)
are doing to people for absolute nothing. But it will never
stop as long as the government funding flows.
True. If you are correct our grandchildren a big mess. If I
am correct and the Global Warming crowd gets their way, we/they
in for a lot of tyranny.
Nice we can talk about this as gentlemen. Geez there are a lot
of sore heads on your side of this issue.
He's never signed himself as "Dave" in this or any other forum in which
I've seen him post. See his sig. line in this post above and in any of
the other posts he has made in the group.
The problem with those who dissent here, which IIRC has only been
expressed by you and Frank, is that neither of you have given cites that
can withstand any scrutiny to support your claims that climate change is
'bunk'. For example, that newspaper article cited by Frank can be
demolished in about 60 seconds flat using the most simple of google
It also surprises me that anyone with any form of science background,
even engineering, would dismiss all of the research done on climate
change by a large number of climate scientists by using the single word
of 'bunk'. That word does not bring to mind scientific rigour coupled
with a dispassionate analysis of the scientific evidence.
David hasn't. He's used the descriptor of "propaganda".
Cite? And please don't drag up that hoary old mistake that appeared on
a page between 400 and 500 of Volume 2 of the IPCC report.
Pacific atolls are not
Kiribati and Tuvalu are both Pacific atolls and the residents of those
nations and the governments of those nations say they are regularly
being covered by sea water as a result of rising sea levels caused by
Can you provide a cite to support your claim that those nations aren't
suffering inundation on a regular basis because of sea rise? And while
you are at it, don't restrict yourself to just the Pacific, you could
also provide a cite that covers the problem of sea rise for the
ocean data shows the Earth is
"The global warming crowd"?? Who are these people? Would they be
scientists? Or even climate scientists? And would those people
actually work and publish in the field of climate science and be subject
to peer review?
Oh barf! "Extremist religious terms"!
"Denier" is just like the terms "warmist" and "alarmist" that the
deniers dandy about. All of those temrms are the swapping of insults on
the old principle of "what goes round, comes round".
It's just like you calling David, Dave, referring to climate scientists
who work and publish in the field of their expertise as "the global
Yes, there are indeed some sore heads on this side and your attempt to
sucker David by trying to soft soap him as a 'gentleman' doesn't cut it
with my sore head.
My head will stay sore until you put up some cites that can withstand
some degree of scrutiny and which can't be demolished by a few very
simple google searches. In other words, do some analysis, find some
reputable science cites as opposed to propaganda and don't put forward
junk science cites that even me with my Arts/social sciences background
can see through in a short amount of time by comparing it to climate
no, i've not heard anything from Billy in a long
time. i suspect he has gone to the great wild beyond.
i hope otherwise.
once you have a tax and spend system in place it
is very hard to get rid of it and everything else
gets plugged into it for the same reason. it is
as close to a self-perpetuating machine that we'll
it isn't favored by most of us here. my
own version would be quite different if i had
my way (if i were king :) ).
yeah, and every delay in changing policy builds more
compound effects into the system. the skeptics may
complain about the costs of making changes but they
don't ever seem to notice how much it will cost to
move or replace the many trillions of dollars of
infrastructure and the lost and damaged land that will
come from even more sea level increases.
they are arguing about three peanuts in a truckload
not understanding that the truckload is coming down
upon their heads (delusional or magical thinking won't
More slurs and insinuations.
Do you have any (even halfway) reputable cites to support your slurs in
relation to the cupidity of scientists? And since we've been discussing
climate science, I'd be particularly interested to see some cites that
can stand up to even a cursory scrutiny on the culpability of climate