The fraud that is modern science

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by wilburbear, Oct 13, 2010.

  1. Ricter

    Ricter

    You are using the products of "modern science" to post this, you stunned goof.
     
  2. Typical libtarded red herring.

    The title of the article is: US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'

    Please don't read it... ignorance is crucial for maintaining the essence of your being.
     
  3. Sad to see that such an eminent scientist with a distinguished career writing such nonsense. But that's what happens when people (even distinguished scientists) cling to ideological nonsense and become incapable of assessing the evidence.

    And as for the gravy train drivel, climate scientists are NOT the beneficiaries of most of the money spent on climate research. The bulk of the funds go on satellites. In a world which could very well have 9 billion people by 2050, it would seem to be prudent to keep an eye on what is happening to the planet.
     
  4. Amusing to see a fool like you trying to dismiss it with bullshit. And he didn't say climate scientists are "beneficiaries of most of the money spent on climate research." Get your facts straight. That's a red herring because even you probably know better than to deny they are influenced and benefit by it.
     
  5. Ricter

    Ricter

    Don't miss the part where, if a distinguished scientist says something we agree with already, then we trot out the distinguished scientist, but if distinguished scientists say things we don't like, then we trot out a couple of bad apples to discredit them all.
     
  6. You'd know all about that, wouldn't you?

     
  7. Any scientist in any field 'benefits' from receiving a salary as does anybody else who is getting paid for any other job. No surprises here.

    It may come as a surprise to you but for most people scientists applying for research grants in their field of expertise would seem both normal and quite proper. In the case of quality research the real beneficiary is the body of scientific knowledge.

    Your implications about climate scientists are idiotic.
     
  8. I have read it and more about professor Lewis, and he has quite an ego and this is what he said:
    "Then came Chernobyl, and Chernobyl did two things. One is, it proved I was right in the first place, which was gratifying"

    So Lewis is upset about getting a run around by APS (American Physical Society) and quit the society. So what? If the "Climategate conspiracy" is real, you would have scores, if not hundreds of resignations.

    http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/4742.html

    He has a psychotic grin to go with his ego as well:
    [​IMG]
     
  9. Eight

    Eight

    oh yeah, I love the great body of "scientific research" we have dumped on us all the time... they say the Gelologic Column is calibrated by the Strata, and they say that the Strata is calibrated by they Geologic Column... well calibration is defined as comparison to to a known standard so that is psudo calibration and everything based on it is psudo science... but there is more, when actual readings are taken of the age of something via any kind of instrument at all, all readings that don't agree with the psudo calibration are dismissed.... what an absolute travesty and what an absolute steaming pantload this "science" industry is....
     
    #10     Oct 14, 2010