| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Scientists lie?
|
Scientists lie?
On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 12:43:20 -0500, Frank
wrote: Who would have thunk it? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html The author of this article also disputes scientific findings about the relationship between passive smoke and cancer and the risks of asbestos. Hardly a ringing endorsement of his credibility. |
Scientists lie?
On 2/8/2015 2:04 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 12:43:20 -0500, Frank wrote: Who would have thunk it? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html The author of this article also disputes scientific findings about the relationship between passive smoke and cancer and the risks of asbestos. Hardly a ringing endorsement of his credibility. 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. |
Scientists lie?
Once upon a time on usenet Frank wrote:
Who would have thunk it? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html 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. -- Shaun. "Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a cozy little classification in the DSM." David Melville (in r.a.s.f1) |
Scientists lie?
Boron Elgar wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 12:43:20 -0500, Frank wrote: Who would have thunk it? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html The author of this article also disputes scientific findings about the relationship between passive smoke and cancer and the risks of asbestos. Hardly a ringing endorsement of his credibility. 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. -- David - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A better world requires a daily struggle against those who would mislead us. |
Scientists lie?
perhaps Frank feels lonely now that Billy isn't around
to kick his butt once in a while? Fran, you have far more patience than i would ever have in dealing with this sort of thing. songbird |
Scientists lie?
On 2/9/2015 9:35 AM, songbird wrote:
perhaps Frank feels lonely now that Billy isn't around to kick his butt once in a while? Fran, you have far more patience than i would ever have in dealing with this sort of thing. songbird Billy lives on with you guys. |
Scientists lie?
On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 18:41:58 -0500, Frank
wrote: On 2/8/2015 2:04 PM, Boron Elgar wrote: On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 12:43:20 -0500, Frank wrote: Who would have thunk it? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html The author of this article also disputes scientific findings about the relationship between passive smoke and cancer and the risks of asbestos. Hardly a ringing endorsement of his credibility. I don't go for the second hand smoke argument either. Everyone knows that toxicity is dose related. 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? 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. 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. |
Scientists lie?
On Mon, 9 Feb 2015 22:12:39 +1100, "David Hare-Scott"
wrote: Boron Elgar wrote: On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 12:43:20 -0500, Frank wrote: Who would have thunk it? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html The author of this article also disputes scientific findings about the relationship between passive smoke and cancer and the risks of asbestos. Hardly a ringing endorsement of his credibility. 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. Amen. Frank no doubt finds him an intellectual hero. Somehow, I do not think "intellectual" ever enters into it. :) |
Scientists lie?
On 02/08/2015 09:43 AM, Frank wrote:
Who would have thunk it? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html Hi Frank, This may be the worst scandal in scientific history, but unfortunately not the first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism "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. -T |
Scientists lie?
On 02/09/2015 06:35 AM, songbird wrote:
perhaps Frank feels lonely now that Billy isn't around to kick his butt once in a while? Fran, you have far more patience than i would ever have in dealing with this sort of thing. songbird Hi Songbird, There is a lot of evidence out there that Global Warming is bunk. You don't have to rely on Frank's reference. 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. -T |
Scientists lie?
On 10/02/2015 1:35 AM, songbird wrote:
perhaps Frank feels lonely now that Billy isn't around to kick his butt once in a while? Have you heard from Billy? I was just wondering what happened to him a few days ago. Fran, you have far more patience than i would ever have in dealing with this sort of thing. 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 is bullshit. |
Scientists lie?
T wrote:
On 02/09/2015 06:35 AM, songbird wrote: perhaps Frank feels lonely now that Billy isn't around to kick his butt once in a while? Fran, you have far more patience than i would ever have in dealing with this sort of thing. songbird Hi Songbird, There is a lot of evidence out there that Global Warming is bunk. You don't have to rely on Frank's reference. No there isn't. There is a lot of propaganda. Then again, if you truly believe something as an axion, then any evidence to your belief system will just amount to heresy. 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. 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. -T 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. -- David - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A better world requires a daily struggle against those who would mislead us. |
Scientists lie?
On 02/09/2015 11:08 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
T wrote: On 02/09/2015 06:35 AM, songbird wrote: Hi Songbird, There is a lot of evidence out there that Global Warming is bunk. You don't have to rely on Frank's reference. No there isn't. There is a lot of propaganda. Hi Dave, 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. 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. 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. Sadly too many politicians meekly follow on and swallow the lies 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. 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. 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, yet. 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. 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. 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. -T |
Scientists lie?
On 10/02/2015 6:35 PM, T wrote:
On 02/09/2015 11:08 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote: T wrote: On 02/09/2015 06:35 AM, songbird wrote: Hi Songbird, There is a lot of evidence out there that Global Warming is bunk. You don't have to rely on Frank's reference. No there isn't. There is a lot of propaganda. Hi Dave, 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. 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. 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 searches. 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. Ice core sample have shown that CO2 emission have always occurs "after" a rise in global temperature. Cite? Be careful about calling dissenting opinion "lies". David hasn't. He's used the descriptor of "propaganda". And the Global warming crowd has been caught fudging and out right fabricating in a number of instances. 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. Sea levels are not rising; Cite? Pacific atolls are not being covered up; 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 climate change. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel...940704/?no-ist http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...21818107001890 http://www.climate.gov.ki/category/e...astal-erosion/ 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 Maldives. ocean data shows the Earth is cooling slights over the past 10 or so years. Cite? 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. Lysenkoism sound to me exactly like the tactics the Global Warming crowd is using, "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? including the use of extremist religious terms like "Denier". 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 warming crowd". 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. 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. 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 science sites. |
Scientists lie?
On 2/9/2015 8:30 PM, T wrote:
On 02/08/2015 09:43 AM, Frank wrote: Who would have thunk it? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html Hi Frank, This may be the worst scandal in scientific history, but unfortunately not the first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism "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. -T Exactly. Also having worked most of my life in R&D I can tell you that scientists will lie to give their bosses the results they want and advance their own careers. Frank |
Scientists lie?
Fran Farmer wrote:
songbird wrote: perhaps Frank feels lonely now that Billy isn't around to kick his butt once in a while? Have you heard from Billy? I was just wondering what happened to him a few days ago. 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. Fran, you have far more patience than i would ever have in dealing with this sort of thing. 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. 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 ever see... 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. 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 :) ). The perpetuation of bullshit, and especially bullshit based on ignorance or self interest, gets right up my left nostril. Climate Change denial is bullshit. 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 stop it). songbird |
Scientists lie?
On 11/02/2015 12:55 AM, Frank wrote:
On 2/9/2015 8:30 PM, T wrote: On 02/08/2015 09:43 AM, Frank wrote: Who would have thunk it? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html Hi Frank, This may be the worst scandal in scientific history, but unfortunately not the first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism "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. -T Exactly. Also having worked most of my life in R&D I can tell you that scientists will lie to give their bosses the results they want and advance their own careers. 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 scientists. |
Scientists lie?
On 2/10/2015 9:13 AM, Fran Farmer wrote:
On 11/02/2015 12:55 AM, Frank wrote: On 2/9/2015 8:30 PM, T wrote: On 02/08/2015 09:43 AM, Frank wrote: Who would have thunk it? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html Hi Frank, This may be the worst scandal in scientific history, but unfortunately not the first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism "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. -T Exactly. Also having worked most of my life in R&D I can tell you that scientists will lie to give their bosses the results they want and advance their own careers. 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 scientists. I see no sense in arguing with an obvious religious/political zealot. |
Scientists lie?
Frank wrote:
.... I see no sense in arguing with an obvious religious/political zealot. when you posted that story what did you expect to come from it that hasn't already been said? songbird |
Scientists lie?
In article
Fran Farmer writes: On 10/02/2015 6:35 PM, T wrote: Hi Dave, He's never signed himself as "Dave" in this or any other forum in which I've seen him post. Changing names seems to be Todd's thing now. As soon as I saw his changed handle, I wondered how many killfiles he was trying to crawl out of. -- Drew Lawson I had planned to be dead by now, but the schedule slipped, they do that. -- Casady |
Scientists lie?
On 11/02/2015 2:19 AM, Frank wrote:
On 2/10/2015 9:13 AM, Fran Farmer wrote: On 11/02/2015 12:55 AM, Frank wrote: On 2/9/2015 8:30 PM, T wrote: On 02/08/2015 09:43 AM, Frank wrote: Who would have thunk it? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html Hi Frank, This may be the worst scandal in scientific history, but unfortunately not the first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism "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. -T Exactly. Also having worked most of my life in R&D I can tell you that scientists will lie to give their bosses the results they want and advance their own careers. 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 scientists. I see no sense in arguing with an obvious religious/political zealot. No, you wouldn't see any sense in doing that because you can't. Slurs and insinuations are your game but you don't even make sense when you use them. You and T have just been ranting on about 'keeping politics out of it' and you even state that lies are used to please bosses. Shame that you throw those comments in without being capable of applying that to your own cite. YOU posted the link to the Telegraph UK article and one simple google search shows up both the politics behind that article (right wing, conservative and Conservative Party) and the "please the bosses by telling lies" role of the journalist. YOU show all the signs of being a religious/political zealot. You aren't prepared to investigate your beliefs nor to analyse what you do post or to defend your stance based on evidence. |
Scientists lie?
On 11/02/2015 8:17 AM, Drew Lawson wrote:
In article Fran Farmer writes: On 10/02/2015 6:35 PM, T wrote: Hi Dave, He's never signed himself as "Dave" in this or any other forum in which I've seen him post. Changing names seems to be Todd's thing now. As soon as I saw his changed handle, I wondered how many killfiles he was trying to crawl out of. T is Todd? Damn. I've been caught out by him nymshifting if that is who he is. I'd stopped reading him because I decided he was a troll and not a particularly smart one either. |
Scientists lie?
Fran Farmer wrote:
On 11/02/2015 8:17 AM, Drew Lawson wrote: In article Fran Farmer writes: On 10/02/2015 6:35 PM, T wrote: Hi Dave, He's never signed himself as "Dave" in this or any other forum in which I've seen him post. Changing names seems to be Todd's thing now. As soon as I saw his changed handle, I wondered how many killfiles he was trying to crawl out of. T is Todd? Damn. I've been caught out by him nymshifting if that is who he is. I'd stopped reading him because I decided he was a troll and not a particularly smart one either. I was caught out too. Back in the bozo bin you go Todd. We established you have nothing months ago and I won't waste the time of the group with you any more. -- David - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A better world requires a daily struggle against those who would mislead us. |
Scientists lie?
On 02/10/2015 05:53 AM, Fran Farmer wrote:
Hi Dave, 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. Hi Fran, I referred to "David Hare-Scott" and "Dave" as a sign of familiarity. It was a compliment. As far as debating you, I have done so in the past. You can find all the cites you want on your own. Then you can assassinate their characters all on your own as well. Call them liars, etc.. Have fun. My intention when writing "Dave" was to have a fun conversation with someone with a different viewpoint. -T |
Scientists lie?
On 02/10/2015 01:17 PM, Drew Lawson wrote:
In article Fran Farmer writes: On 10/02/2015 6:35 PM, T wrote: Hi Dave, He's never signed himself as "Dave" in this or any other forum in which I've seen him post. Changing names seems to be Todd's thing now. As soon as I saw his changed handle, I wondered how many killfiles he was trying to crawl out of. Hi Drew, I had a huge snafu with how I connect to the newgroups that I will not go into. I chose "T" because I thought everyone would recognize me as I always sign off as "-T". As far as killfiles go, again, I tried to make myself easy to recognize. And quite frankly, I have lost track of who does and doesn't like me. I did not think it necessary to write them (if I even knew who they were) and warn them to edit my name. -T (A.K.A. Todd) Religion and politics need to butt out of science. |
Scientists lie?
On 02/10/2015 02:32 PM, Fran Farmer wrote:
On 11/02/2015 8:17 AM, Drew Lawson wrote: In article Fran Farmer writes: On 10/02/2015 6:35 PM, T wrote: Hi Dave, He's never signed himself as "Dave" in this or any other forum in which I've seen him post. Changing names seems to be Todd's thing now. As soon as I saw his changed handle, I wondered how many killfiles he was trying to crawl out of. T is Todd? Damn. I've been caught out by him nymshifting if that is who he is. I'd stopped reading him because I decided he was a troll and not a particularly smart one either. Wow. I though everyone would figure it out instantly. Go figure. You should add me back to your kill file if you think that of me. |
Scientists lie?
On 02/10/2015 04:21 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Fran Farmer wrote: On 11/02/2015 8:17 AM, Drew Lawson wrote: In article Fran Farmer writes: On 10/02/2015 6:35 PM, T wrote: Hi Dave, He's never signed himself as "Dave" in this or any other forum in which I've seen him post. Changing names seems to be Todd's thing now. As soon as I saw his changed handle, I wondered how many killfiles he was trying to crawl out of. T is Todd? Damn. I've been caught out by him nymshifting if that is who he is. I'd stopped reading him because I decided he was a troll and not a particularly smart one either. I was caught out too. Back in the bozo bin you go Todd. We established you have nothing months ago and I won't waste the time of the group with you any more. We have some fun with the gardening. But it is up to you if differing opinions offend you. |
Scientists lie?
On 02/10/2015 05:55 AM, Frank wrote:
On 2/9/2015 8:30 PM, T wrote: On 02/08/2015 09:43 AM, Frank wrote: Who would have thunk it? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html Hi Frank, This may be the worst scandal in scientific history, but unfortunately not the first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism "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. -T Exactly. Also having worked most of my life in R&D I can tell you that scientists will lie to give their bosses the results they want and advance their own careers. Frank Hi Frank, You and I are going to catch hell from the ideologues. It is like discussing religion. Religion and politics need to butt out of science. Did you notice that the source you cited got character assassinated? This is what happens when political correctness rules science (Lysenkoism). -T (A.K.A. Todd) |
Scientists lie?
On 02/10/2015 06:13 AM, Fran Farmer wrote:
Also having worked most of my life in R&D I can tell you that scientists will lie to give their bosses the results they want and advance their own careers. More slurs and insinuations. Hi Fran, No "slurs and insinuations". I have seen this too. The perpetrators call it the "Gravy Train". Anyone who rocks the boat catches hell. Instead of insulting him, why don't you ask him about his experience. Then maybe share some of yours? -T |
Scientists lie?
On 2/10/2015 10:41 PM, T wrote:
On 02/10/2015 05:55 AM, Frank wrote: On 2/9/2015 8:30 PM, T wrote: On 02/08/2015 09:43 AM, Frank wrote: Who would have thunk it? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html Hi Frank, This may be the worst scandal in scientific history, but unfortunately not the first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism "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. -T Exactly. Also having worked most of my life in R&D I can tell you that scientists will lie to give their bosses the results they want and advance their own careers. Frank Hi Frank, You and I are going to catch hell from the ideologues. It is like discussing religion. Religion and politics need to butt out of science. Did you notice that the source you cited got character assassinated? This is what happens when political correctness rules science (Lysenkoism). -T (A.K.A. Todd) Ad hominem attacks are a normal knee jerk response. I noticed it, expected it, and ignored it. Frank |
Scientists lie?
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:41:32 -0800, T wrote:
Did you notice that the source you cited got character assassinated? This is what happens when political correctness rules science (Lysenkoism). Your source was called out for his well-known agenda, his repeated denial of basic scientific facts and his overall lack of credibility. |
Scientists lie?
In article
Fran Farmer writes: On 11/02/2015 8:17 AM, Drew Lawson wrote: In article Fran Farmer writes: On 10/02/2015 6:35 PM, T wrote: Hi Dave, He's never signed himself as "Dave" in this or any other forum in which I've seen him post. Changing names seems to be Todd's thing now. As soon as I saw his changed handle, I wondered how many killfiles he was trying to crawl out of. T is Todd? Well, the writing is the same, as is the thought bubble. Damn. I've been caught out by him nymshifting if that is who he is. I'd stopped reading him because I decided he was a troll and not a particularly smart one either. Not smart, but occasionally amusing to watch. -- Drew Lawson | We were taking a vote when | the ground came up and hit us. | -- Cylon warrior |
Scientists lie?
On 02/11/2015 07:02 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:41:32 -0800, T wrote: Did you notice that the source you cited got character assassinated? This is what happens when political correctness rules science (Lysenkoism). Your source was called out for his well-known agenda, his repeated denial of basic scientific facts and his overall lack of credibility. "well-known agenda"? "repeated denial of basic scientific facts"? "overall lack of credibility"? And, you wonder why our side thinks your side is a religoun. By the way, that was Fran's cite, not mine. I didn't even bother to read it as there are tons of evidence of fudging and fabricating on your side. Lysenkoism is well in play. |
Scientists lie?
On 02/11/2015 11:21 AM, Drew Lawson wrote:
T is Todd? Well, the writing is the same, as is the thought bubble. Hi Drew, I have a lot of friends over on the home repair group. Everyone figured it out instantly, which was what I was after. I am rather surprised that it caught this group off guard. Oh well. -T (A.K.A. Todd) |
Scientists lie?
On 12/02/2015 12:14 AM, Frank wrote:
On 2/10/2015 10:41 PM, T wrote: On 02/10/2015 05:55 AM, Frank wrote: On 2/9/2015 8:30 PM, T wrote: On 02/08/2015 09:43 AM, Frank wrote: Who would have thunk it? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html Hi Frank, This may be the worst scandal in scientific history, but unfortunately not the first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism "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. -T Exactly. Also having worked most of my life in R&D I can tell you that scientists will lie to give their bosses the results they want and advance their own careers. Frank Hi Frank, You and I are going to catch hell from the ideologues. It is like discussing religion. Religion and politics need to butt out of science. Did you notice that the source you cited got character assassinated? This is what happens when political correctness rules science (Lysenkoism). -T (A.K.A. Todd) Ad hominem attacks are a normal knee jerk response. I noticed it, expected it, and ignored it. And whilst basking in that warm glow, you still failed, as usual, to provide any credible cites. |
Scientists lie?
On 12/02/2015 6:21 AM, Drew Lawson wrote:
In article Fran Farmer writes: On 11/02/2015 8:17 AM, Drew Lawson wrote: In article Fran Farmer writes: On 10/02/2015 6:35 PM, T wrote: Hi Dave, He's never signed himself as "Dave" in this or any other forum in which I've seen him post. Changing names seems to be Todd's thing now. As soon as I saw his changed handle, I wondered how many killfiles he was trying to crawl out of. T is Todd? Well, the writing is the same, as is the thought bubble. Indeed it is. Damn. I've been caught out by him nymshifting if that is who he is. I'd stopped reading him because I decided he was a troll and not a particularly smart one either. Not smart, but occasionally amusing to watch. :-)) Well I won't play with him from now on in. Please let me know if you notice him changing his nym at some time in the future. |
Scientists lie?
On 12/02/2015 2:02 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:41:32 -0800, T wrote: Did you notice that the source you cited got character assassinated? This is what happens when political correctness rules science (Lysenkoism). Your source was called out for his well-known agenda, his repeated denial of basic scientific facts and his overall lack of credibility. That "journalist" really is lacking in credibility but then if we go on to the links back to Homewood, The Tele source, at least it can be said that he put more effort into his hoodwinking than the "journalist". You've got to hand it to Homewood, he's got a nice little hoodwink line going on there. People such as the Telegraph "journalist" and others who go to his site must just believe him without going on to check his sources. They must be either lazy or stupid or will buy cheap sea side land that only gets wet twice a day. If they did check the links Homewood gives, it becomes very clear, very quickly, that Homewood also is not the least bit credible. |
Scientists lie?
On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 7:19:04 AM UTC-8, Frank wrote:
On 2/10/2015 9:13 AM, Fran Farmer wrote: On 11/02/2015 12:55 AM, Frank wrote: On 2/9/2015 8:30 PM, T wrote: On 02/08/2015 09:43 AM, Frank wrote: Who would have thunk it? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html Hi Frank, This may be the worst scandal in scientific history, but unfortunately not the first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism "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. -T Exactly. Also having worked most of my life in R&D I can tell you that scientists will lie to give their bosses the results they want and advance their own careers. 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 scientists. I see no sense in arguing with an obvious religious/political zealot. HONI SOIT QUI MAL Y PENSE HB |
Scientists lie?
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:55:37 +1100, Fran Farmer
wrote: On 12/02/2015 2:02 AM, Boron Elgar wrote: On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:41:32 -0800, T wrote: Did you notice that the source you cited got character assassinated? This is what happens when political correctness rules science (Lysenkoism). Your source was called out for his well-known agenda, his repeated denial of basic scientific facts and his overall lack of credibility. That "journalist" really is lacking in credibility but then if we go on to the links back to Homewood, The Tele source, at least it can be said that he put more effort into his hoodwinking than the "journalist". You've got to hand it to Homewood, he's got a nice little hoodwink line going on there. People such as the Telegraph "journalist" and others who go to his site must just believe him without going on to check his sources. They must be either lazy or stupid or will buy cheap sea side land that only gets wet twice a day. If they did check the links Homewood gives, it becomes very clear, very quickly, that Homewood also is not the least bit credible. Indeed. Most folks will not take the extra step that is needed these days to verify what they see online. Sigh. I used to think that full access to knowledge and verifiable facts online would create in informed citizenry. Boy was I wrong. All it has done is give a stage to fools, liars and snake-oil purveyors. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:01 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter