Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm afraid it goes against human nature to hope for the latter. Some research has shown that instinctually a genetic identity will differentiate itself from one that is not identical to it. I suppose you could call this inherent racism if you want to.
I just prefer to call a human nature.
I think the science personnel are just as guilty because they are tacitly dishonest by allowing only one point of view to be expressed necessary to keep government and grant money flowing to their organizations. Any deviation from that and all that lovely money quickly dries up.I I think most of the guilt lies with the media not necessarily with the scientific personnel.
I believe if more scientists were allowed to do their own writing and publishing we would see less spectacularism and more of what is actually factual.
I think the science personnel are just as guilty because they are tacitly dishonest by allowing only one point of view to be expressed necessary to keep government and grant money flowing to their organizations. Any deviation from that and all that lovely money quickly dries up.
Anyone in media, education, government scientific institutions etc. who questions or disagrees with the politically correct dogma of AGW or that reducing CO2 emissions is the only proper policy is made so uncomfortable that they quit or they are forced out. Science that doesn't allow questions or diversity of thought is not science at all. It is dogma, propaganda, mind control.
I I think most of the guilt lies with the media not necessarily with the scientific personnel.
I believe if more scientists were allowed to do their own writing and publishing we would see less spectacularism and more of what is actually factual.
Wow! Fucks for bucks eh?The climatology mafia controls all aspects of scientific journalism in their sphere.
If you wish to publish a study that runs counter to AGW dogma, it won't get published.
They don't use peer review. They use oal review. In one case one of the reviewers was the man's wife.
Climatology is incestuous, and corrupt to its very core.
Yup. A study on polar bears that literally was based on a couple of pictures that the fraudster took from an airplane as he was flying overhead.Wow! Fucks for bucks eh?
There are multiple examples of scientific fraud within the climatology world.Do you have an example? ... Chris Landsea regularly publishes scientific-based denialism, just not on his employer's website, weather.gov ... I personally base ALL my denialist rhetoric on his teachings, but that's my fault, not his ...
The government punished him by making him "Chief of the Tropical Analysis and Forecast Branch (TAFB) at NOAA’s National Hurricane Center (NHC) in Miami." ... poor soul ... he could have been making cameo appearances on Young Sheldon all this time ... damn that government ...
Climatology is for folks who flunk out of dynamic meteorology school ... that dreaded "3rd grade math" in the OP ... we have to be able to multiply to forecast weather ... if addition is the extent of your math abilities, then climatology is for you ...
I'm pretty sure Chris Landsea (or any others who question any part of the AGW religion) is not being funded by government or private grants too.Do you have an example? ... Chris Landsea regularly publishes scientific-based denialism, just not on his employer's website, weather.gov ... I personally base ALL my denialist rhetoric on his teachings, but that's my fault, not his ...
The government punished him by making him "Chief of the Tropical Analysis and Forecast Branch (TAFB) at NOAA’s National Hurricane Center (NHC) in Miami." ... poor soul ... he could have been making cameo appearances on Young Sheldon all this time ... damn that government ...
Climatology is for folks who flunk out of dynamic meteorology school ... that dreaded "3rd grade math" in the OP ... we have to be able to multiply to forecast weather ... if addition is the extent of your math abilities, then climatology is for you ...
www.businessinsider.com
www.usmessageboard.com
The climatology mafia controls all aspects of scientific journalism in their sphere.
If you wish to publish a study that runs counter to AGW dogma, it won't get published.
They don't use peer review. They use pal review. In one case one of the reviewers was the man's wife.
Climatology is incestuous, and corrupt to its very core.
Some skeptics, as ReinyDays pointed out--as indicated in my own thread linked in my response to him/her--are getting published. That is only because the Marxist left hasn't yet obtained enough power to control the less than 10% of the media or mass communication they can't control yet.The climatology mafia controls all aspects of scientific journalism in their sphere.
If you wish to publish a study that runs counter to AGW dogma, it won't get published.
They don't use peer review. They use pal review. In one case one of the reviewers was the man's wife.
Climatology is incestuous, and corrupt to its very core.
I'm pretty sure Chris Landsea is not being funded by government
Well then put yourself in the category that allows no diversity of thought but demands that your (climate) religion be the only one allowed. And one so unscientifically uncurious--any person uncurious is not at all scientific minded--that you cannot qualify as a scientist. Credentials do not matter once a person has abandoned science and takes on some sort of politically correct 'religion'.Technically ... employees of the government are being funded by the government ...
A vast majority of Atmospheric Scientists will keep their jobs and research money long after climate change dies ... the research being done is important and long long overdue ... especially in the polar regions, where weather stations are particularly expensive ...
I'm ignoring the rest of your post ... your mind is made up and you're not a pilot or farmer ... get your forecasts from Disneyland for all I care ... BTW, how's your third grade math? ... (1360 W/m^2 ( 1 - 0.3 )) / (4 x 5.67 x 10^-8 W/m^2 K^-4) ...
Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Well then put yourself in the category that allows no diversity of thought but demands that your (climate) religion be the only one allowed.
I'm sure what you just wrote here makes perfect sense to you. But unless you care to address what I actually said/argued I will again wish you a lovely day. (Note: you already said you ignored it.)Who's doing this? ... Nature doesn't ... do I really need to check the Minutes of the Royal Society? ... maybe you should and edify yourself on the scientific media ...
Where did I day that?So you don't believe the Urban Heat Island effect is real ...
Where are you getting your scientific news? ... a search on Google Scholar pulls up dozens of pages of scientific denialism ... here's a gem from the Journal Nature from 2007 ... about the time Chris Landsea was kicked off the IPCC ...
Haag, Amanda; "Stormy Weather Ahead"; Nature; July 2007 ... note this is an article, not a scientific paper ... it's strictly up to you if you trust this particular rag ...
It starts with recognition of familial relations via the major histocompatibility complex. Visual differences and then behavioral and cultural and societal take over from there but our intellect allows us to overcome such irrationally driven emotions. A man who had never seen a horse would be frightened to death of one. One who has ridden and knows them will feel very different. The more time we spend with each other, having joint experiences and learning about each other, the less we will feel that nagging fear of not-self.I'm afraid it goes against human nature to hope for the latter. Some research has shown that instinctually, a genetic identity will differentiate itself from one that is not identical to it. It's a sort of hard wired instinct. I suppose you could call this inherent racism if you want to.
I just prefer to call a human nature.
Oh sure it can be overcome but I don't think it can be eliminated. People learn to cope but not necessarily deeply accept. It might mean we have to fight our own nature to be successful. I suppose the difference between man and animal is that man supposedly has a moral nature. Maybe that's really more of a fairy tale than a reality.It starts with recognition of familial relations via the major histocompatibility complex. Visual differences and then behavioral and cultural and societal take over from there but our intellect allows us to overcome such irrationally driven emotions. A man who had never seen a horse would be frightened to death of one. One who has ridden and knows them will feel very different. The more time we spend with each other, having joint experiences and learning about each other, the less we will feel that nagging fear of not-self.
It can be reduced to the level of organic noise. And, at that level, all of the former groups (blacks, whites, Asian, Christians, atheists, Muslims) will be at the same economic and influential levels in society and the small remaining amount of prejudice will not be enough to threaten anyone's oppression.Oh sure it can be overcome but I don't think it can be eliminated. People learn to cope but not necessarily deeply accept. It might mean we have to fight our own nature to be successful. I suppose the difference between man and animal is that man supposedly has a moral nature. Maybe that's really more of a fairy tale than a reality.
I'm sure what you just wrote here makes perfect sense to you. But unless you care to address what I actually said/argued I will again wish you a lovely day. (Note: you already said you ignored it.)
Where did I day that?
You play the same bullshit games of putting words in people's mouths, that they didn't say
