Trump EPA chief jettisoning alarmists from advisory panel!!

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Alarmists"

I.E., climate scientists.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

[
You don't get to be the arbitrator who decides who is or who is not legitimate. The opinions are based on sound science. Sad that you think only science as you think it should be is right..

Neither do you . And no they are not. Science is science. It's not fake news. I know that's hard for the likes of you..

The problem is the climatologists have already been shown to have falsified data, and corrupted the peer review process. This is not opinion, this is fact.

No, that's opinion. And it's wrong-headed. The peer reviewprocess is not corrupted, that's made-up bullshit. And 100 people could falsify data tomorrow, and it would be a ricochet shot off of the mountains of data on the atmosphere, ground temps, and ocean temps that we have. Overly-general bullshit.... "The cops killed a black guy, therefore, all cops hate all black guys"....same specious reasoning.

If so many "correct" (in your estimate) scientists are being persecuted by "The Man!", then they should be bringing their science to universities and scientiific societies, right? A compelling argument is a compelling argument. Hubble convinced the entire human race with a compelling argument.

 

[Billy_Bob]

[
You don't get to be the arbitrator who decides who is or who is not legitimate. The opinions are based on sound science. Sad that you think only science as you think it should be is right..

Neither do you . And no they are not. Science is science. It's not fake news. I know that's hard for the likes of you..

The problem is the climatologists have already been shown to have falsified data, and corrupted the peer review process. This is not opinion, this is fact.

No, that's opinion. And it's wrong-headed. The peer reviewprocess is not corrupted, that's made-up bullshit. And 100 people could falsify data tomorrow, and it would be a ricochet shot off of the mountains of data on the atmosphere, ground temps, and ocean temps that we have. Overly-general bullshit.... "The cops killed a black guy, therefore, all cops hate all black guys"....same specious reasoning.

If so many "correct" (in your estimate) scientists are being persecuted by "The Man!", then they should be bringing their science to universities and scientiific societies, right? A compelling argument is a compelling argument. Hubble convinced the entire human race with a compelling argument.

All of that from a position of ignorance because it sure as hell isn't science based.. How can we bring real science into a university that is dependent on grants that require a specific finding for pro-AGW positions. If they did that, those real scientists would blow your fantasy up and they would lose their funding... they wont bite the hand that feeds them and that is when science loses to political bull shit AGW (or should I say globalist/socialist/UN agenda 21) political agenda.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

[
You don't get to be the arbitrator who decides who is or who is not legitimate. The opinions are based on sound science. Sad that you think only science as you think it should be is right..

Neither do you . And no they are not. Science is science. It's not fake news. I know that's hard for the likes of you..

The problem is the climatologists have already been shown to have falsified data, and corrupted the peer review process. This is not opinion, this is fact.

No, that's opinion. And it's wrong-headed. The peer reviewprocess is not corrupted, that's made-up bullshit. And 100 people could falsify data tomorrow, and it would be a ricochet shot off of the mountains of data on the atmosphere, ground temps, and ocean temps that we have. Overly-general bullshit.... "The cops killed a black guy, therefore, all cops hate all black guys"....same specious reasoning.

If so many "correct" (in your estimate) scientists are being persecuted by "The Man!", then they should be bringing their science to universities and scientiific societies, right? A compelling argument is a compelling argument. Hubble convinced the entire human race with a compelling argument.

All of that from a position of ignorance because it sure as hell isn't science based.. How can we bring real science into a university that is dependent on grants that require a specific finding for pro-AGW positions. If they did that, those real scientists would blow your fantasy up and they would lose their funding... they wont bite the hand that feeds them and that is when science loses to political bull shit AGW (or should I say globalist/socialist/UN agenda 21) political agenda.

The overwhelming preponderance of evidence and published science is not science based?

Haha....okay, professor.

 

[westwall]

="Fort Fun Indiana, post: 18495337, member: 62138"]

[
You don't get to be the arbitrator who decides who is or who is not legitimate. The opinions are based on sound science. Sad that you think only science as you think it should be is right..

Neither do you . And no they are not. Science is science. It's not fake news. I know that's hard for the likes of you..

The problem is the climatologists have already been shown to have falsified data, and corrupted the peer review process. This is not opinion, this is fact.

No, that's opinion. And it's wrong-headed. The peer reviewprocess is not corrupted, that's made-up bullshit. And 100 people could falsify data tomorrow, and it would be a ricochet shot off of the mountains of data on the atmosphere, ground temps, and ocean temps that we have. Overly-general bullshit.... "The cops killed a black guy, therefore, all cops hate all black guys"....same specious reasoning.

If so many "correct" (in your estimate) scientists are being persecuted by "The Man!", then they should be bringing their science to universities and scientiific societies, right? A compelling argument is a compelling argument. Hubble convinced the entire human race with a compelling argument.[/QUOTE]







Yes, it is. And it's not just in climatology either, it has been corrupted science wide....Which harms science as a whole. Here are just a very few examples of how the process has been corrupted.

The Corruption of Peer Review Is Harming Scientific Credibility

Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ‘peer review ring’

Scientific publishing: The inside track

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf

 

[Billy_Bob]

[
You don't get to be the arbitrator who decides who is or who is not legitimate. The opinions are based on sound science. Sad that you think only science as you think it should be is right..

Neither do you . And no they are not. Science is science. It's not fake news. I know that's hard for the likes of you..

The problem is the climatologists have already been shown to have falsified data, and corrupted the peer review process. This is not opinion, this is fact.

No, that's opinion. And it's wrong-headed. The peer reviewprocess is not corrupted, that's made-up bullshit. And 100 people could falsify data tomorrow, and it would be a ricochet shot off of the mountains of data on the atmosphere, ground temps, and ocean temps that we have. Overly-general bullshit.... "The cops killed a black guy, therefore, all cops hate all black guys"....same specious reasoning.

If so many "correct" (in your estimate) scientists are being persecuted by "The Man!", then they should be bringing their science to universities and scientiific societies, right? A compelling argument is a compelling argument. Hubble convinced the entire human race with a compelling argument.

All of that from a position of ignorance because it sure as hell isn't science based.. How can we bring real science into a university that is dependent on grants that require a specific finding for pro-AGW positions. If they did that, those real scientists would blow your fantasy up and they would lose their funding... they wont bite the hand that feeds them and that is when science loses to political bull shit AGW (or should I say globalist/socialist/UN agenda 21) political agenda.

The overwhelming preponderance of evidence and published science is not science based?

Haha....okay, professor.

LOL

Your slip is showing....

 

[skookerasbil]

All opinions should be represented on the panel, both in support or not in support of climate change theory

That is exactly right.......you see very year at the climate summit.......any science that doesn't conform with the established narrative, "YOU'RE OUT!!'. lol...........no agenda there!!!

But the alarmists call all of their scientists "real" scientists...........what a bunch of suckers.

 

[skookerasbil]

Anyone who would PERSONALLY BENEFIT FROM THEIR ACTIONS on the board is not allowed.

And yet Trump fills the boards with paid fossil fuel company shills, and it doesn't bother you a bit.

You really don't care that you now look the most corrupt hypocrite on the board, do you? After all, you're getting sweet sweet cash, and brownie points from your Stalinist cult.

So, how much fossil fuel stock do you own? More than zero, obviously. Thus, by your own standards, you ought to shut up on this topic. By your own standards, the cash payoff you're getting makes you totally corrupt and a devotee of fraud, and we've witnessed such behavior from you in nearly every post you make. You're a fraud machine and a jackbooted authoritarian.

This fucking dummy thinks that there are no special interests attached to green energy.......only on the side of the skeptics!!

But I digress........on the science, its really all a moot point as Ive pointed out many times in here. The science isn't mattering outside the realm of the field ( ie: the real world ). The alarmist club has totally controlled the climate science field now for two decades........and to what end? Renewable energy is still a joke!!

 

[skookerasbil]

All orange all the time!!

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

So, anyone who knows the science is forbidden from working on the science. It's the modern Lysenkoism. Any science inconvenient to TheParty must be squashed. Next step, send the scientists to the Gulag if they contradict the edicts of TheParty.

That may be a win for the denier Stalinists on this thread, but it's a loss for science, the USA, commen sense and common decency. Oh, the world still exists, so this only harms the USA. The rest of the planet still does the good science, and science in the USA goes in the shitter, which is what the denier Stalinists want. An ignorant population is easier to remove democracy from, and removing American democracy to bring about their Stalinist utopia is the goal of the denier Stalinists.

They actually want people like me imprisoned, as well. The more honest ones have even admitted it. Most deniers are hardcore Stalinists down to core of their beings.

Wrong. Anyone who would PERSONALLY BENEFIT FROM THEIR ACTIONS on the board is not allowed. You know, like real science and engineering works. Or at least is supposed to at least.

I just want scientists who think critically and do not have a monetary gain from the outcome. I want people who will look at the science and value it by its merits.. no more agenda driven crap..

Super-Duper Sheldon Cooper Pooper Scoopers

Most of the treehuggers and warmalarmies aren't in it for monetary gain. They're pathetic nerd weaklings who fantasize about being comic-book heroes saving the world.

 

[fncceo]

Energy Secretary Rick Perry says CO2 is not the main driver of climate change

· Energy Secretary Rick Perry says he does not believe CO2 emissions from human activity are the primary driver of climate change.

· That view is at odds with the conclusions of the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

· EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt also told CNBC in March he does not believe global warming is primarily caused by CO2.

Energy Secretary Rick Perry says CO2 is not the main driver of climate change

Its the ocean and environment we live in.

I don't live in the ocean. He does ...

 

[peach174]

All opinions should be represented on the panel, both in support or not in support of climate change theory

Then those opinions damned well better be backed up by evidence and observations. How are you going to argue with the absorption spectra of the GHG's?

There is no science that backs up the 'skeptics', period.

It was not fossil fuels that caused the worst hurricane in 1780 that killed over 27 and a half thousand people.
Fossil fuel is not the cause of our climate change.
The environments on many of our planets is changing, including our sun.
We need to look at all the data, not just fossil fuel burning as the cause.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

="Fort Fun Indiana, post: 18495337, member: 62138"]

[
You don't get to be the arbitrator who decides who is or who is not legitimate. The opinions are based on sound science. Sad that you think only science as you think it should be is right..

Neither do you . And no they are not. Science is science. It's not fake news. I know that's hard for the likes of you..

The problem is the climatologists have already been shown to have falsified data, and corrupted the peer review process. This is not opinion, this is fact.

No, that's opinion. And it's wrong-headed. The peer reviewprocess is not corrupted, that's made-up bullshit. And 100 people could falsify data tomorrow, and it would be a ricochet shot off of the mountains of data on the atmosphere, ground temps, and ocean temps that we have. Overly-general bullshit.... "The cops killed a black guy, therefore, all cops hate all black guys"....same specious reasoning.

If so many "correct" (in your estimate) scientists are being persecuted by "The Man!", then they should be bringing their science to universities and scientiific societies, right? A compelling argument is a compelling argument. Hubble convinced the entire human race with a compelling argument.

Yes, it is. And it's not just in climatology either, it has been corrupted science wide....Which harms science as a whole. Here are just a very few examples of how the process has been corrupted.

The Corruption of Peer Review Is Harming Scientific Credibility

Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ‘peer review ring’

Scientific publishing: The inside track

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf[/QUOTE]

Those opinion pieces and a few instances do not make your case that the entire peer process has been corrupted. Sorry. Not convincing. And we both know it stems purely from politivcs on your part, else you would trust no science. No, you reserve this absurd accusation only for the science that doesn't jibe with your politics. Period.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Neither do you . And no they are not. Science is science. It's not fake news. I know that's hard for the likes of you..

The problem is the climatologists have already been shown to have falsified data, and corrupted the peer review process. This is not opinion, this is fact.

No, that's opinion. And it's wrong-headed. The peer reviewprocess is not corrupted, that's made-up bullshit. And 100 people could falsify data tomorrow, and it would be a ricochet shot off of the mountains of data on the atmosphere, ground temps, and ocean temps that we have. Overly-general bullshit.... "The cops killed a black guy, therefore, all cops hate all black guys"....same specious reasoning.

If so many "correct" (in your estimate) scientists are being persecuted by "The Man!", then they should be bringing their science to universities and scientiific societies, right? A compelling argument is a compelling argument. Hubble convinced the entire human race with a compelling argument.

All of that from a position of ignorance because it sure as hell isn't science based.. How can we bring real science into a university that is dependent on grants that require a specific finding for pro-AGW positions. If they did that, those real scientists would blow your fantasy up and they would lose their funding... they wont bite the hand that feeds them and that is when science loses to political bull shit AGW (or should I say globalist/socialist/UN agenda 21) political agenda.

The overwhelming preponderance of evidence and published science is not science based?

Haha....okay, professor.

LOL

Your slip is showing....

"LOL"

Will that be the title of your next journal-published scientific article? And by "next", I mean your first.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

All opinions should be represented on the panel, both in support or not in support of climate change theory

Then those opinions damned well better be backed up by evidence and observations. How are you going to argue with the absorption spectra of the GHG's?

There is no science that backs up the 'skeptics', period.

It was not fossil fuels that caused the worst hurricane in 1780 that killed over 27 and a half thousand people.
Fossil fuel is not the cause of our climate change.
The environments on many of our planets is changing, including our sun.
We need to look at all the data, not just fossil fuel burning as the cause.

What a terrible argument. You are arguing against something literally nobody has said, and against an idea that is not part of climate theory. Then you follow it up with authoritative claims invented by you, who has no education or experience in these fields whatsoever. In essence, you are calling the global scientifoc community incompetent amd liars. What a joke...your opinion is worth less than nothing...

 

[IanC]

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. Upton Sinclair


Most mainstream educated skeptics are reasonably happy accepting that doubling CO2 will add about one degree Celcius of warming influence at the surface.

This is not new energy from an outside source but simply a change in the pathway of solar input leaving as IR at the top of the atmosphere. The mechanism is more stored energy in the atmosphere which in turn leads to more energy being returned to the surface.

There is no possibility of runaway warming from this small influence. Nor any of the other catastrophic predictions. But if there is no cause for alarm then there is no cause to spend enormous sums on changing the world's energy infrastructure or the world's governance that controls it.

Climate science likes to believe they are more important than they are, and politicians are quite happy to use them to increase their power. There are many reasons to continue this sham because those who are advocating it are being rewarded. And many people like to believe in it because they feel it gives them the moral high ground, and makes them feel important.

 

[Old Rocks]

We are no where near doubling it, yet we are damned near at 1 C right now.

 

[westwall]

We are no where near doubling it, yet we are damned near at 1 C right now.

Sure we are....

 

[Dr Grump]

The problem is the climatologists have already been shown to have falsified data, and corrupted the peer review process. This is not opinion, this is fact.

Links please

 

[westwall]

The problem is the climatologists have already been shown to have falsified data, and corrupted the peer review process. This is not opinion, this is fact.

Links please

All over this thread. Knock yourself out.