National Academy of Sciences: A bunch of fakes!!!

[westwall]

Yes I have done grants.
You will not find a gov. grant for natural vs manmade climate change studies. If you have any post them.
Look it up on the web site.
Here is one example
Search Grants GRANTS.GOV warming
They are looking for green energy on this one.

The ones that you find that says there is not enough data to say it is manmade are from private funding.

You are the one that is silent with crickets,
Put up government funded study grants that studies natural global warming.

I suggest you survey the peer reviewed literature, because there are literally hundreds of papers on the subject. You didn't know this? huh.

And how many of those are "Pal" reviewed? Face it olfraud, the climatologists have so corrupted the peer review process that very few thinking people pay them any mind at all any more.

So you say, pretender. That is not what I see at the university.

Here's what a Nobel recipient says. You know..... a REAL one, unlike Mann!


"Sydney Brenner has been talking about what’s wrong with the scientific enterprise since long before he shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2002.

And in a new interview, Brenner doesn’t hold back, saying that publishers hire “a lot of failed scientists, editors who are just like the people at Homeland Security, little power grabbers in their own sphere.”

In a King’s Review Q&A titled “How Academia and Publishing Are Destroying Scientific Innovation,” Brenner says:

And of course all the academics say we’ve got to have peer review. But I don’t believe in peer review because I think it’s very distorted and as I’ve said, it’s simply a regression to the mean.

I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system. It’s corrupt in many ways, in that scientists and academics have handed over to the editors of these journals the ability to make judgment on science and scientists."


How Academia and Publishing are Destroying Scientific Innovation A Conversation with Sydney Brenner King s Review Magazine

 

[westwall]

You are the one that is silent with crickets,
Put up government funded study grants that studies natural global warming.

I suggest you survey the peer reviewed literature, because there are literally hundreds of papers on the subject. You didn't know this? huh.

And how many of those are "Pal" reviewed? Face it olfraud, the climatologists have so corrupted the peer review process that very few thinking people pay them any mind at all any more.

I have to assume that you believe that you are the only "thinking person" on the planet, because every published scientist uses the peer review process. You are deluding yourself, and fooling no one. I also have to assume that because you are a moderator, you believe that you are above the rules of the forum. You are not.

If Westwall has a Phd, I imagine it has been a half century since he has published anything. And, as a mod, he has created more of a rebellion than any other that I have been aware of.

No, only around 30. Once I entered into the business world I didn't pursue studies because...well you know the old saying. "Those who can...do...Those who can't... teach"

 

[orogenicman]

You are the one that is silent with crickets,
Put up government funded study grants that studies natural global warming.

I suggest you survey the peer reviewed literature, because there are literally hundreds of papers on the subject. You didn't know this? huh.

And how many of those are "Pal" reviewed? Face it olfraud, the climatologists have so corrupted the peer review process that very few thinking people pay them any mind at all any more.

So you say, pretender. That is not what I see at the university.

Here's what a Nobel recipient says. You know..... a REAL one, unlike Mann!


"Sydney Brenner has been talking about what’s wrong with the scientific enterprise since long before he shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2002.

And in a new interview, Brenner doesn’t hold back, saying that publishers hire “a lot of failed scientists, editors who are just like the people at Homeland Security, little power grabbers in their own sphere.”

In a King’s Review Q&A titled “How Academia and Publishing Are Destroying Scientific Innovation,” Brenner says:

And of course all the academics say we’ve got to have peer review. But I don’t believe in peer review because I think it’s very distorted and as I’ve said, it’s simply a regression to the mean.

I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system. It’s corrupt in many ways, in that scientists and academics have handed over to the editors of these journals the ability to make judgment on science and scientists."


How Academia and Publishing are Destroying Scientific Innovation A Conversation with Sydney Brenner King s Review Magazine

And what was his chosen profession? Physiology. Meaning, that he doesn't know dick about climatology.

 

[orogenicman]

You are the one that is silent with crickets,
Put up government funded study grants that studies natural global warming.

I suggest you survey the peer reviewed literature, because there are literally hundreds of papers on the subject. You didn't know this? huh.

And how many of those are "Pal" reviewed? Face it olfraud, the climatologists have so corrupted the peer review process that very few thinking people pay them any mind at all any more.

I have to assume that you believe that you are the only "thinking person" on the planet, because every published scientist uses the peer review process. You are deluding yourself, and fooling no one. I also have to assume that because you are a moderator, you believe that you are above the rules of the forum. You are not.

If Westwall has a Phd, I imagine it has been a half century since he has published anything. And, as a mod, he has created more of a rebellion than any other that I have been aware of.

No, only around 30. Once I entered into the business world I didn't pursue studies because...well you know the old saying. "Those who can...do...Those who can't... teach"

Sounds like you did neither.

 

[westwall]

You are the one that is silent with crickets,
Put up government funded study grants that studies natural global warming.

I suggest you survey the peer reviewed literature, because there are literally hundreds of papers on the subject. You didn't know this? huh.

And how many of those are "Pal" reviewed? Face it olfraud, the climatologists have so corrupted the peer review process that very few thinking people pay them any mind at all any more.

So you say, pretender. That is not what I see at the university.

Here's what a Nobel recipient says. You know..... a REAL one, unlike Mann!


"Sydney Brenner has been talking about what’s wrong with the scientific enterprise since long before he shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2002.

And in a new interview, Brenner doesn’t hold back, saying that publishers hire “a lot of failed scientists, editors who are just like the people at Homeland Security, little power grabbers in their own sphere.”

In a King’s Review Q&A titled “How Academia and Publishing Are Destroying Scientific Innovation,” Brenner says:

And of course all the academics say we’ve got to have peer review. But I don’t believe in peer review because I think it’s very distorted and as I’ve said, it’s simply a regression to the mean.

I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system. It’s corrupt in many ways, in that scientists and academics have handed over to the editors of these journals the ability to make judgment on science and scientists."


How Academia and Publishing are Destroying Scientific Innovation A Conversation with Sydney Brenner King s Review Magazine

And what was his chosen profession? Physiology. Meaning, that he doesn't know dick about climatology.

Physiology is a "hard" science, unlike climatology, sport. This man can run rings around any 10 or your climatologists.....blindfolded.

 

[skookerasbil]

Love to have just a single member of this fraudulent group come out to New York this morning to warm up my car!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

I suggest you survey the peer reviewed literature, because there are literally hundreds of papers on the subject. You didn't know this? huh.

And how many of those are "Pal" reviewed? Face it olfraud, the climatologists have so corrupted the peer review process that very few thinking people pay them any mind at all any more.

So you say, pretender. That is not what I see at the university.

Here's what a Nobel recipient says. You know..... a REAL one, unlike Mann!


"Sydney Brenner has been talking about what’s wrong with the scientific enterprise since long before he shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2002.

And in a new interview, Brenner doesn’t hold back, saying that publishers hire “a lot of failed scientists, editors who are just like the people at Homeland Security, little power grabbers in their own sphere.”

In a King’s Review Q&A titled “How Academia and Publishing Are Destroying Scientific Innovation,” Brenner says:

And of course all the academics say we’ve got to have peer review. But I don’t believe in peer review because I think it’s very distorted and as I’ve said, it’s simply a regression to the mean.

I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system. It’s corrupt in many ways, in that scientists and academics have handed over to the editors of these journals the ability to make judgment on science and scientists."


How Academia and Publishing are Destroying Scientific Innovation A Conversation with Sydney Brenner King s Review Magazine

And what was his chosen profession? Physiology. Meaning, that he doesn't know dick about climatology.

Physiology is a "hard" science, unlike climatology, sport. This man can run rings around any 10 or your climatologists.....blindfolded.

West bro......we could post in here for 100 years........these hard core k00ks like Mamooth and Orangemen are full-on zombies with significant social oddities to boot........its a lifestyle for them >>>

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Buddhist-monks-pray-while-008.jpg.html][/URL]

 

[IanC]

this whole thing reeks of political correctness. it reminds me of all the Anthropology and Sociology associations in the 90's coming out with statements about how there was no such thing as race, which was pretty much at odds with everything that they studied.

does anyone actually doubt that the term 'denier' is not meant to socially punish anyone who strays from the politically correct position that rich westerners are ruining the globe with their energy usage?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yes I have done grants.
You will not find a gov. grant for natural vs manmade climate change studies. If you have any post them.
Look it up on the web site.
Here is one example
Search Grants GRANTS.GOV warming
They are looking for green energy on this one.

The ones that you find that says there is not enough data to say it is manmade are from private funding.

You are the one that is silent with crickets,
Put up government funded study grants that studies natural global warming.

I suggest you survey the peer reviewed literature, because there are literally hundreds of papers on the subject. You didn't know this? huh.

And how many of those are "Pal" reviewed? Face it olfraud, the climatologists have so corrupted the peer review process that very few thinking people pay them any mind at all any more.

I have to assume that you believe that you are the only "thinking person" on the planet, because every published scientist uses the peer review process. You are deluding yourself, and fooling no one. I also have to assume that because you are a moderator, you believe that you are above the rules of the forum. You are not.

As with all things proposed by liberals, the intent of peer review was to keep bad science from tainting good science but the exact opposite has occurred..

And its current use is to stop good science from killing the control agenda of the left.

 

[mamooth]

Deniers, have you noticed that all you have now is these weepy conspiracy theories? Rest assured that the rest of the planet notices. That would account for the constant laughter directed your way.

As this thread demonstrates so well, denialism is purely a conspiracy cult now. Deniers ought to proudly take their places among the flat earthers, birthers, antivaxxers, moon landing hoaxers, JFK assassination theorists and 9/11 truthers.

Why don't threads like this get placed where they belong, in the Conspiracy folder? It's high time that the hyper-PC standards that protect the deniers were dropped. Deniers need to be treated exactly like every other conspiracy kook on this board.

 

[peach174]

Deniers, have you noticed that all you have now is these weepy conspiracy theories? Rest assured that the rest of the planet notices. That would account for the constant laughter directed your way.

As this thread demonstrates so well, denialism is purely a conspiracy cult now. Deniers ought to proudly take their places among the flat earthers, birthers, antivaxxers, moon landing hoaxers, JFK assassination theorists and 9/11 truthers.

Why don't threads like this get placed where they belong, in the Conspiracy folder? It's high time that the hyper-PC standards that protect the deniers were dropped. Deniers need to be treated exactly like every other conspiracy kook on this board.

Deniers?
How about the scientists themselves who are not dependent on government grants that are controlled by the environmental lobbyists?
About NIPCC Climate Change Reconsidered

 

[orogenicman]

I suggest you survey the peer reviewed literature, because there are literally hundreds of papers on the subject. You didn't know this? huh.

And how many of those are "Pal" reviewed? Face it olfraud, the climatologists have so corrupted the peer review process that very few thinking people pay them any mind at all any more.

So you say, pretender. That is not what I see at the university.

Here's what a Nobel recipient says. You know..... a REAL one, unlike Mann!


"Sydney Brenner has been talking about what’s wrong with the scientific enterprise since long before he shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2002.

And in a new interview, Brenner doesn’t hold back, saying that publishers hire “a lot of failed scientists, editors who are just like the people at Homeland Security, little power grabbers in their own sphere.”

In a King’s Review Q&A titled “How Academia and Publishing Are Destroying Scientific Innovation,” Brenner says:

And of course all the academics say we’ve got to have peer review. But I don’t believe in peer review because I think it’s very distorted and as I’ve said, it’s simply a regression to the mean.

I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system. It’s corrupt in many ways, in that scientists and academics have handed over to the editors of these journals the ability to make judgment on science and scientists."


How Academia and Publishing are Destroying Scientific Innovation A Conversation with Sydney Brenner King s Review Magazine

And what was his chosen profession? Physiology. Meaning, that he doesn't know dick about climatology.

Physiology is a "hard" science, unlike climatology, sport. This man can run rings around any 10 or your climatologists.....blindfolded.

Physiology is a biological science, "sport".

 

[orogenicman]

You are the one that is silent with crickets,
Put up government funded study grants that studies natural global warming.

I suggest you survey the peer reviewed literature, because there are literally hundreds of papers on the subject. You didn't know this? huh.

And how many of those are "Pal" reviewed? Face it olfraud, the climatologists have so corrupted the peer review process that very few thinking people pay them any mind at all any more.

I have to assume that you believe that you are the only "thinking person" on the planet, because every published scientist uses the peer review process. You are deluding yourself, and fooling no one. I also have to assume that because you are a moderator, you believe that you are above the rules of the forum. You are not.

As with all things proposed by liberals, the intent of peer review was to keep bad science from tainting good science but the exact opposite has occurred..

And its current use is to stop good science from killing the control agenda of the left.

I like the way you frame peer review as a "liberal" conspiracy. It just makes me laugh my friggin ass off. Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Get a grip.

 

[orogenicman]

Love to have just a single member of this fraudulent group come out to New York this morning to warm up my car!!!

Proving for the 1000th time that deniers don't understand the difference between climate and weather.

 

[westwall]

Deniers, have you noticed that all you have now is these weepy conspiracy theories? Rest assured that the rest of the planet notices. That would account for the constant laughter directed your way.

As this thread demonstrates so well, denialism is purely a conspiracy cult now. Deniers ought to proudly take their places among the flat earthers, birthers, antivaxxers, moon landing hoaxers, JFK assassination theorists and 9/11 truthers.

Why don't threads like this get placed where they belong, in the Conspiracy folder? It's high time that the hyper-PC standards that protect the deniers were dropped. Deniers need to be treated exactly like every other conspiracy kook on this board.

Weepy? What you mean willis? The only people weeping and whining are you and yours. The AGW cult has been exposed and you are losing adherents and power all over the world. The people have finally figured out that you're all a bunch of frauds and so you are on the way out. That's why the mass propaganda campaigns, and the attempts to stifle any sort of discourse.

Yes, you ARE whining a lot. A WHOLE lot!

 

[westwall]

And how many of those are "Pal" reviewed? Face it olfraud, the climatologists have so corrupted the peer review process that very few thinking people pay them any mind at all any more.

So you say, pretender. That is not what I see at the university.

Here's what a Nobel recipient says. You know..... a REAL one, unlike Mann!


"Sydney Brenner has been talking about what’s wrong with the scientific enterprise since long before he shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2002.

And in a new interview, Brenner doesn’t hold back, saying that publishers hire “a lot of failed scientists, editors who are just like the people at Homeland Security, little power grabbers in their own sphere.”

In a King’s Review Q&A titled “How Academia and Publishing Are Destroying Scientific Innovation,” Brenner says:

And of course all the academics say we’ve got to have peer review. But I don’t believe in peer review because I think it’s very distorted and as I’ve said, it’s simply a regression to the mean.

I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system. It’s corrupt in many ways, in that scientists and academics have handed over to the editors of these journals the ability to make judgment on science and scientists."


How Academia and Publishing are Destroying Scientific Innovation A Conversation with Sydney Brenner King s Review Magazine

And what was his chosen profession? Physiology. Meaning, that he doesn't know dick about climatology.

Physiology is a "hard" science, unlike climatology, sport. This man can run rings around any 10 or your climatologists.....blindfolded.

Physiology is a biological science, "sport".

Yes, it is, and it's MEASURED! That's what makes it a hard science, sport.

 

[jc456]

Deniers, have you noticed that all you have now is these weepy conspiracy theories? Rest assured that the rest of the planet notices. That would account for the constant laughter directed your way.

As this thread demonstrates so well, denialism is purely a conspiracy cult now. Deniers ought to proudly take their places among the flat earthers, birthers, antivaxxers, moon landing hoaxers, JFK assassination theorists and 9/11 truthers.

Why don't threads like this get placed where they belong, in the Conspiracy folder? It's high time that the hyper-PC standards that protect the deniers were dropped. Deniers need to be treated exactly like every other conspiracy kook on this board.

the silliness never stops.

 

[orogenicman]

So you say, pretender. That is not what I see at the university.

Here's what a Nobel recipient says. You know..... a REAL one, unlike Mann!


"Sydney Brenner has been talking about what’s wrong with the scientific enterprise since long before he shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2002.

And in a new interview, Brenner doesn’t hold back, saying that publishers hire “a lot of failed scientists, editors who are just like the people at Homeland Security, little power grabbers in their own sphere.”

In a King’s Review Q&A titled “How Academia and Publishing Are Destroying Scientific Innovation,” Brenner says:

And of course all the academics say we’ve got to have peer review. But I don’t believe in peer review because I think it’s very distorted and as I’ve said, it’s simply a regression to the mean.

I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system. It’s corrupt in many ways, in that scientists and academics have handed over to the editors of these journals the ability to make judgment on science and scientists."


How Academia and Publishing are Destroying Scientific Innovation A Conversation with Sydney Brenner King s Review Magazine

And what was his chosen profession? Physiology. Meaning, that he doesn't know dick about climatology.

Physiology is a "hard" science, unlike climatology, sport. This man can run rings around any 10 or your climatologists.....blindfolded.

Physiology is a biological science, "sport".

Yes, it is, and it's MEASURED! That's what makes it a hard science, sport.

The hard sciences are physics and Chemistry - full stop. Everything else, such as geology and biology, utilize the hard sciences but are not themselves hard sciences. There are no laws of biology, and geology only has one - the law of superposition.

 

[westwall]

Here's what a Nobel recipient says. You know..... a REAL one, unlike Mann!


"Sydney Brenner has been talking about what’s wrong with the scientific enterprise since long before he shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2002.

And in a new interview, Brenner doesn’t hold back, saying that publishers hire “a lot of failed scientists, editors who are just like the people at Homeland Security, little power grabbers in their own sphere.”

In a King’s Review Q&A titled “How Academia and Publishing Are Destroying Scientific Innovation,” Brenner says:

And of course all the academics say we’ve got to have peer review. But I don’t believe in peer review because I think it’s very distorted and as I’ve said, it’s simply a regression to the mean.

I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system. It’s corrupt in many ways, in that scientists and academics have handed over to the editors of these journals the ability to make judgment on science and scientists."


How Academia and Publishing are Destroying Scientific Innovation A Conversation with Sydney Brenner King s Review Magazine

And what was his chosen profession? Physiology. Meaning, that he doesn't know dick about climatology.

Physiology is a "hard" science, unlike climatology, sport. This man can run rings around any 10 or your climatologists.....blindfolded.

Physiology is a biological science, "sport".

Yes, it is, and it's MEASURED! That's what makes it a hard science, sport.

The hard sciences are physics and Chemistry - full stop. Everything else, such as geology and biology, utilize the hard sciences but are not themselves hard sciences. There are no laws of biology, and geology only has one - the law of superposition.

And you claim to be a geologist. What a farce.....
hard science

"hard science
noun
1.

1. one of the natural or physical sciences, such as physics, chemistry, biology, geology, or astronomy
2. (as modifier): a hard-science lecture

Derived Forms
hard scientist, noun"


Hard science Define Hard science at Dictionary.com

 

[mamooth]

Weepy? What you mean willis? The only people weeping and whining are you and yours. The AGW cult has been exposed and you are losing adherents and power all over the world. The people have finally figured out that you're all a bunch of frauds and so you are on the way out. That's why the mass propaganda campaigns, and the attempts to stifle any sort of discourse.

Yes, you ARE whining a lot. A WHOLE lot!

We talk about the science and presenting evidence, over and over.

In response to every bit of data, you auto-scream it's all faked, or come up with new and creative ways to deflect from the issues. It's all you're capable of now.

That's why the whole planet can clearly see you're part of a pack of frauds. Honest people address the data, but you and everyone on your side run from the data.