Climate alarmist destroyed

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

You claimed science doesn't use terms like crisis. They most certainly do.

No. I do not think scientific papers should include opinions. I also do not think people like that fat, failed politician Gore, should warping scientific findings.

What has Gore said that was not accurate besides TIME PREDICTIONS?

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

We already have the technology in place to use fossil fuels in a much "cleaner" way.

We're NOT USING fossil fuels in a way that eliminates GHG increasing the atmospheric concentrations and therefor increasing the rate of WARMING.

We also need to clean up abandoned drill sites that are STILL leaking CO2 and Methane.

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Plus we have nuclear. Thus most of any "damage" that's been done over the last century and a half, is being reduced. This war on fossil fuels is a fool's errand.

No, NOT being reduced. Maybe slowing the rate of INCREASE. People are WORKING ON carbon capture which MAY "REDUCE" some day.

YOU are making a far bigger fool of yourself than Gore ever did.

[robosmith]

23 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

1. What do you expect? Mike you may claim to not engage in fighting and denial, but the climate religious most certainly do. Hence the "noise". And we both know who starts the mud-slinging.

2. Trolling is something we all do. I've watched you do it too. 

I sit and watch the rationality of the public be hi-jacked by that loud, overbearing, very disruptful relative everyone has. The family Karen. Or Todd. The dull. And I feel honorbound to oppose them. 

We are not all gonna die. It is not essential that extreme views need be taken seriously. There was a time, not all that long ago, when common sense, absolute truth and compromise were normal. Today they are "concepts" that can be warped and made meaningless.

 

YOU ARE the ONLY ONE HERE, saying "we're all gonna die" HYPERBOLE.

But the FACT is, people have ALREADY DIED from the increased climate caused disasters.

And MANY MORE have lost their homes.

[Nationalist]

3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

What has Gore said that was not accurate besides TIME PREDICTIONS?

We're NOT USING fossil fuels in a way that eliminates GHG increasing the atmospheric concentrations and therefor increasing the rate of WARMING.

We also need to clean up abandoned drill sites that are STILL leaking CO2 and Methane.

No, NOT being reduced. Maybe slowing the rate of INCREASE. People are WORKING ON carbon capture which MAY "REDUCE" some day.

YOU are making a far bigger fool of yourself than Gore ever did.

And THIS... @Michael Hardner...is "Todd". This is why your hated "culture war" is raging.

@robosmith...Al Gore used those insane predictions to scare the Hell outta people and bring them to heal. For that alone he deserves a good spanking. 

Now take your expensive degree in social justice, and go color your hair green.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Here is a copy/paste of my points in this thread:
 

I didn't say 'science' or scientists don't use the term.  I stated that published scientific papers shouldn't be used for opinion/editorial.
2. As I suspected.
 

Of course published science should be used for opinon.  That's one of the primary reasons to do it. 

And in fact to a large degree EVERY science work HAS opinion built in. THey don't just collect the data, they use the data to come to an opinion about things. That essentially is what a conclusion is  -  "we read the data to mean the following".  or "we believe the data supports the idea that".   And it's also true that often even if the data is accurate the conclusion is not. 

There jokes about this in science, a french scientist (it's always french  )   teaches a flea to jump on command, then starts to pull it's legs off one by one. Each time it says 'jump' and the little guy still does his best to jump.  After all the legs are gone he says jump and the flea just lays there.  "Today i have discovered that pulling the legs off of a flea causes it to go deaf"   

So that the public can make reasonable policy decisions and choices

It is not only silly it is beyond entitled to suggest that science shouldn't form the basis of public opinion. Of course it should

[robosmith]

5 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

And THIS... @Michael Hardner...is "Todd". This is why your hated "culture war" is raging.

@robosmith...Al Gore used those insane predictions to scare the Hell outta people and bring them to heal. For that alone he deserves a good spanking. 

Now take your expensive degree in social justice, and go color your hair green.

My MS degree is in ENGINEERING, IGNORAMUS.

When disaster on massive scale is impending, people need to be scared to TAKE ACTION and that fear is RATIONAL. Duh.

Cheapskates' like YOU are a major reason WHY.  You want to  WAIT until the disaster OCCURS before taking ACTION because YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SCIENCE. To YOU it's just BELIEF that is OPTIONAL.

[Nationalist]

30 minutes ago, robosmith said:

My MS degree is in ENGINEERING, IGNORAMUS.

When disaster on massive scale is impending, people need to be scared to TAKE ACTION and that fear is RATIONAL. Duh.

Cheapskates' like YOU are a major reason WHY.  You want to  WAIT until the disaster OCCURS before taking ACTION because YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SCIENCE. To YOU it's just BELIEF that is OPTIONAL.

See @Michael Hardner?

Pure silliness.

[Michael Hardner]

58 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. Of course published science should be used for opinon.  That's one of the primary reasons to do it. 

2. And in fact to a large degree EVERY science work HAS opinion built in.   

3. And it's also true that often even if the data is accurate the conclusion is not. 

4. There jokes about this in science, a french scientist (it's always french  )   teaches a flea to jump on command, then starts to pull it's legs off one by one. Each time it says 'jump' and the little guy still does his best to jump.  After all the legs are gone he says jump and the flea just lays there.  "Today i have discovered that pulling the legs off of a flea causes it to go deaf"   

5. So that the public can make reasonable policy decisions and choices

6. It is not only silly it is beyond entitled to suggest that science shouldn't form the basis of public opinion.

7. Of course it should

1. Yes.
2. Also yes.
3. Yes again.
4. 
5. Yes
6. Yes, and I wouldn't want to do that.
7. Yes.

 

What Nationalist and I agree on is that editorials should not be published AS scientific papers.  The evidence provided above in the thread, has the publisher specifically stating that their paper is a distortion (my word) of what science papers usually do.

It would be like me posting a science paper that says "Cake tastes good".

But all the points I highlighted I also agree with.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

My MS degree is in ENGINEERING, IGNORAMUS.

You do seem like an engineered ignoramus, so that tracks  

You did claim previously you had a degree in computer sciecne as well. I guess it's hard to keep track of all your degrees  

Kid. the only degree anyone believes you have is the degree of stupidity you show in your posts.