Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old 08-02-2015, 06:43 PM posted to rec.gardens
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Dec 2012
Posts: 283
Default Scientists lie?

Who would have thunk it?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html
  #2   Report Post  
Old 08-02-2015, 08:04 PM posted to rec.gardens
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Feb 2008
Posts: 218
Default 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.
  #3   Report Post  
Old 09-02-2015, 12:41 AM posted to rec.gardens
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Dec 2012
Posts: 283
Default 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.
  #4   Report Post  
Old 09-02-2015, 05:00 AM posted to rec.gardens
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Nov 2014
Posts: 149
Default 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)


  #5   Report Post  
Old 09-02-2015, 12:12 PM posted to rec.gardens
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,036
Default 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.



  #6   Report Post  
Old 09-02-2015, 03:35 PM posted to rec.gardens
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,072
Default 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
  #7   Report Post  
Old 09-02-2015, 07:20 PM posted to rec.gardens
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Dec 2012
Posts: 283
Default 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.
  #8   Report Post  
Old 10-02-2015, 01:16 AM posted to rec.gardens
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Feb 2008
Posts: 218
Default 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.
  #9   Report Post  
Old 10-02-2015, 01:17 AM posted to rec.gardens
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Feb 2008
Posts: 218
Default 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.


  #10   Report Post  
Old 10-02-2015, 02:30 AM posted to rec.gardens
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,112
Default 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


  #11   Report Post  
Old 10-02-2015, 03:05 AM posted to rec.gardens
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,112
Default 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
  #12   Report Post  
Old 10-02-2015, 07:08 AM posted to rec.gardens
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jan 2014
Posts: 459
Default 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.


  #13   Report Post  
Old 10-02-2015, 08:08 AM posted to rec.gardens
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,036
Default 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.

  #14   Report Post  
Old 10-02-2015, 08:35 AM posted to rec.gardens
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,112
Default 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




  #15   Report Post  
Old 10-02-2015, 02:53 PM posted to rec.gardens
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jan 2014
Posts: 459
Default 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.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Healthy Forests? Scientists See Salvage Logging -- Not Wildfire Protection -- At Center of Healt Larry Harrell alt.forestry 0 25-07-2003 07:32 PM
MAD COWS OR MAD SCIENTISTS? Mark Dawkins sci.agriculture 2 26-04-2003 01:30 PM
MAD COWS OR MAD SCIENTISTS? Mark Dawkins sci.agriculture 2 27-03-2003 02:08 AM
MAD COWS OR MAD SCIENTISTS? Mark Dawkins sci.agriculture 2 29-01-2003 12:52 AM
Scientists agree world faces MASS EXTINCTIONS David Wilson alt.forestry 4 24-11-2002 02:28 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:26 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017