Bias and Intolerance in Science

Why thanks for inviting me.

The Scientific Alliance is a British industry-friendly organization that promotes biotechnology, genetically modified food, with links to groups involved in climate change denial activities.

The group was created in 2001 by quarryman Robert Durward, director of the British Aggregates Association, and political consultant Mark Adams of the public relations firm, Foresight Communications.[2] The Scotsman newspaper has reported that on contacting the Alliance to ask about Durward's role, 'after some uncertainty, the switchboard it shares with a number of other firms denied any knowledge of Mr Durward’s existence. Matthew Drinkwater, the one person responding to calls to its offices, could also be contacted by ringing the offices of Foresight Communications.'[2] Foresight Communications is a PR firm established by Mark Adams in January 2001. As well as The Scientific Alliance, its client list includes the British Aggregates Association and the New Party (formerly known as the "Peoples Alliance" (sic)) which was also established by Durward and Adams.
Bob May of the Royal Society has criticized the Scientific Alliance for holding a forum for groups involved in climate change denial and for its links to the George C. Marshall Institute, saying that the "climate change denial lobby" had a "poisonous" influence on the media.[3] In December 2004 the organization published a joint report with the George C. Marshall Institute in Washington,[4] a thinktank that has received $715,000 in funding from the U.S. oil company, ExxonMobil.[5] The Alliance's director, Martin Livermore, wrote that "The Scientific Alliance has never received money from ExxonMobil"[6] and according to the Alliance, "donations are only accepted without conditions and afford no influence over [the group's] policy"."

wiki

About Corazon's source material ^^^^

Wow Scientific Alliance really sounds professional!
 
Micawber said:
A guy who makes small rocks that go in concrete and a PR firm. That's some awesome climate science!
Click to expand...

The false premise....it takes a Phd to document a lie via a presentation of objective and testable facts in evidence.

Again? Enlighten us: What is THE PLAN and what are the real documented numbers that demonstrates that man can STOP AND REVERSE any change in the climate that will stop the natural disasters that are occurring around the globe.

Proceed: What is your plan? To allow green energy to replace all the carbon energy output on earth? If not just how will it help the poor that require carbon based energy sources to simply live from day to day.....and what will you do with the poor nations that can't afford the luxury of counting carbon credits any more than they can afford to stop using fossil energy to cook and warm themselves.

Detail the plan with objective testable facts:
 
Ralph said:
The false premise....it takes a Phd to document a lie via a presentation of objective and testable facts in evidence.
Click to expand...

Wrong, dummy. It doesn't just take a PhD, it takes the right one, like the ones given in places like Columbia, Cal, Carnegie Mellon, Texas, or Scripps. A casually interested rich guy who owns a quarry and hires a PR firm can't tell a climate science lie from pyrite. I sure am not listening to him. You can. Feel free to overlook all the real climate scientists and follow that guy around the web. I don't have to tolerate posers. Show me the peer reviewed scholarly journal articles or piss off.

And no, I'm not jumping hoops and doing homework at your request. Plenty of literature readily accessible from myriad authentic and quality sources exist on plans to ameliorate carbon and try and save us from your slimey ilk.
 
Last edited:
Micawber said:
Wrong, dummy. It doesn't just take a PhD, it takes the right one, like the ones given in places like Columbia, Cal, Carnegie Mellon, Texas, or Scripps. A casually interested rich guy who owns a quarry and hires a PR firm can't tell a climate science lie from pyrite. I sure am not listening to him. You can. Feel free to overlook all the real climate scientists and follow that guy around the web. I don't have to tolerate posers. Show me the peer reviewed scholarly journal articles or piss off.

And no, I'm not jumping hoops and doing homework at your request. Plenty of literature readily accessible from myriad authentic and quality sources exist on plans to ameliorate carbon and try and save us from your slimey ilk.
Click to expand...

Bias and "intolerance"....what do you call your response to honest questions (just like the others you don't want to debate, you merely want to demonize any conclusion that differs from the left wing talking points). What is it...but bias and intolerance?
Did I actually EXPECT you to provide the answers to the questions asked? Of course not....you don't have any answers only accusations.


Sure....FACTS vary depending upon the amount of education you have. Really? That's your story and you are sticking to it? Why then have you and all the educated green team members not provided a viable solution that will stop or alter the climate and the way it changes while addressing the needs of the poor nations around the globe? Your solution....INCOME REDISTRIBUTION?

And of course you will not answer the simple questions asked in an objective fashion. Why? You have no answers. Its not difficult....you require others to jump through hoops but you don't have to provide the facts asked of you? Conclusion: What you call truth is nothing but subjective conjecture and propaganda...as you can provide no real solutions to the problems you suggest are caused by man...why? No one can control the weather on earth except that which created it. If man caused the climate change he sure as hell can fix what he has caused...if not, why not? And income redistribution via carbon credits and a so called restitution to the poorer nations solves the problem.....HOW? If they have more money to spend void the same so called morality and consideration of the earth that you have....will they not contribute even more to the so called problem? If not, why not?:palm:
 
Last edited:
No climate denial in peer reviewed climate science published in high impact, prestigious scholarly journals yet? Thought not. Wake me up when you do some or get some!
 
The global warming controversy concerns the public debate over whether global warming is occurring, how much has occurred in modern times, what has caused it, what its effects will be, whether any action should be taken to curb it, and if so what that action should be. In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[2][3][4][5][6][7] No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,[8] though a few organizations with members in extractive industries hold non-committal positions.[9] Disputes over the key scientific facts of global warming are more prevalent in the media than in the scientific literature, where such issues are treated as resolved, and such disputes are more prevalent in the United States than globally.[10][11]Julie Brigham-Grette; et al. (September 2006). "Petroleum Geologists' Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" (PDF). Eos. 87 (36): 364. Bibcode:2006EOSTr..87..364B. doi:10.1029/2006EO360008. The AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming.
 
Name anyone that is a "Climate" denier....what bunk. Climate and climate change has existed since the beginning of time. What idiot says that the Climate never changes? Again, you fail to address the actual questions asked of you and proceed to intolerantly attack anyone that points out that it takes more than some "consensus" by a group of self described elite assholes to make something a fact of objective and applied science. It takes facts, facts that you cannot point out because none exist that proves that man can change the climate and stop any changes in the weather that place man into danger.

There was a "consensus" of all the smart people in the middle ages that declared the earth was flat, and was the center of the universe with the sun revolving around the earth, thus that is why its still called sunrise and sunset...but that consensus did not make that conjecture true anymore than your left wing talking point conjectures make anything you present true. Such as suggesting that anyone that disagrees with you is a CLIMATE DENIER (a left wing talking point made to demonize anyone that simply wants objective and testable evidences presented in the Scientific Method).

Why have you refused to address the questions presented? You cannot address them....all you can do is attempt to accuse anyone that asks any questions (questions that must be answered if anyone is to believe you)....of being a Climate Denier...an Oxymoronic statement if ever one existed. Of course the Climate Changes...as proof we have 4 seasons every year in the North American Hemisphere. :palm: Are you a child? Just how many CLIMATE DENIERS exist in the United States. Give us a testable objective number.
 
Garbage in, garbage out. Disputes over the key scientific facts of global warming are more prevalent in the media than in the scientific literature, where such issues are treated as resolved,... Climate science deniers have zero credible source material and are relegated to attacking from without, tying to pressure science by propagandizing and disinformation to the teaming masses of unwashed Trumptards. They are all from polluting industries. That's the source of the lies.
 
Poor Micawber ain't realized that his side has lost the debate on global warming.

People aren't buying the lies anymore.

Leftists are sad. Micawber doesn't even believe this global warming shit he posts
 
Micawber said:
Wrong, dummy. It doesn't just take a PhD, it takes the right one, like the ones given in places like Columbia, Cal, Carnegie Mellon, Texas, or Scripps. A casually interested rich guy who owns a quarry and hires a PR firm can't tell a climate science lie from pyrite. I sure am not listening to him. You can. Feel free to overlook all the real climate scientists and follow that guy around the web. I don't have to tolerate posers. Show me the peer reviewed scholarly journal articles or piss off.

And no, I'm not jumping hoops and doing homework at your request. Plenty of literature readily accessible from myriad authentic and quality sources exist on plans to ameliorate carbon and try and save us from your slimey ilk.
Click to expand...

Here's what you need to know about climate science deniers: they don't even believe their own bullshit.

In every other areas of their lives - every. single. one. - they place great weight, great stock, great trust, in expertise. Experts who are specifically trained to specialize in a profession.

Deniers go to dentists - not pediatricians - when they have a tooth ache.

Deniers go to certified public accountants - not registered nurses - for tax help.

Deniers trust biochemists - not geologists - to create their prescription meds.

edit to add: They would trust astrophysicists opinion more on dark matter, than a sociologists opinion on dark matter.

Deniers place great stock and emphasis on trained expertise. Climate science is the only areas in their lives that they quote, cite, and supposedly trust people who are not trained, published, research climate scientists. I have seen deniers grasp at every thing, from mining company stock analysts, to mentally ill mushroom farmers, in hilarious efforts to justify their denial.

The bottom line is this: deniers are emotionally invested. They would rather see harm come to their grandchildren, and to earth's environment, than admit they were wrong to anonymous liberals they will never meet on an obscure message board.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
Here's what you need to know about climate science deniers: they don't even believe their own bullshit.

In every other areas of their lives - every. single. one. - they place great weight, great stock, great trust, in expertise. Experts who are specifically trained to specialize in a profession.

Deniers go to dentists - not pediatricians - when they have a tooth ache.

Deniers go to certified public accountants - not registered nurses - for tax help.

Deniers trust biochemists - not geologists - to create their prescription meds.
.
Click to expand...

What do you go to a 'climate scientist' for?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top