Climate Activist Greta

They were found to be without merit.

Really.

The only way they could be found to be "without merit" is to allow someone to attempt to replicate his findings using his own data.

Something he refused to do. He chose to lose the case than to have his data, and therefore his findings, examined.

THAT IS NOT SCIENCE.

 

I'll be honest, I'm not super up on it all. What was found without merit? Where did you read that?

 

Mann sued Ball because Ball called him a junk scientist.

Ball suggested Mann turn over his data, which he and others would replicate to see if they came to the same conclusions as Mann.

The court ordered the data to be turned over to prove that Mann wasn't a junk scientist and that his findings were reproducible.

Mann refused, choosing to lose the court case over releasing the data for examination by other scientists.

That is not science.

I've noticed most AGW proponents aren't "super up on it all". It's a common theme.

 

Well, it was the teenager all knowing wisdom and superior IQ on display once again. Stockholm syndrome possibly also.

 

Sounds like there is a lot more to the story than that summary. Even if there wasn't, it's just a court case, not science.

Hey, here's a very common but extremely poor debate technique: Find some small detail only related in the weakest way to the subject at hand, and if the other person has missed one tiny detail, you can console yourself that you are somehow more educated on the entire matter. I don't bring this up for any particular reason, just a fun thing you can look out for and you will be surprised how common it is.

 

So, the answer was, no? You wouldn't accept a list of 500 folks who know more about it. got it. So, your theory is only from the orthodox hymnal shall you sing. Got it...

 

Saying I denied science.

If you could list any science that I've denied.

 

I suppose I should take this one example as the necessary proof anyone needs to demonstrate that you functionally are unable to read. Sweet.

 

Sure, I'll accept it, but knows more about it than who? I'll then compare it to the opposing position, and because it won't really even be visible by comparison, we can go ahead and ignore it.

 

I think when they say that euthanize science they mean you deny science as a deity. Because they seem to worship it like a deity.

We just ridiculing you for not being a member of the Church of climate change.

 

Oh?

 

We'll let us all hope it doesn't merge with scientology then....

 

Lol, we know how you treat the concept of proof, so who's to say? If you want it to be proof, you will accept as such, if you don't want it to be proof, you won't.

 

I don't even know why I'm taking time to explain things you clearly don't want to understand.

You can't even grasp that science isn't science unless the data from a scientific experiment is widely distributed and replicated by other scientists.

"The party of science" indeed.

 

I take it by this gibberish you can't listen to science I have denied.

It's okay you don't have to apologize for your misspeaking your silence says enough.

 

More like the ministry of conformance....

 

Apparently "science" is now determined by how many other idiots read your article while nodding along.

Replicating experiments? Sharing the actual data? Whaaaa?

 

Why do so many progressive science deniers believe that none of us remember what the old Soviet Union was like... It's as if they simply assume that no one will remember the tactics, or the methods, and suddenly they're just all "new" again...

 

Your declaration of my understanding is as empty as your own ideological entrenchment seems to be. Impressively so.

 

If you don’t understand the foundation or AGW and have to ask , you might as well admit you don’t know eighth grade science. Asking about it over and over again, simply means no answer will satisfy someone who already thinks they are smarter then every university in the world.

 

Ah.. name calling. That's what you have left. I thought so.. Does it ever embarrass you to be this intellectually dishonest?

 

This being the case, it then shouldn't have been hard for you to educate the questioner, right? I mean, as you suggest, it's eight grade science... And just for the record, can you explain how an inanimate place like a university can be smart?

 

Replications:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years
https://ral.ucar.edu/projects/rc4a/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf
https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/Resources/Seminar/readings/Huang_boreholeTemp_Nature'00.pdf

 

I think with these people sciences their deity. I wonder what they're going to do if they're proven wrong?

There seems to be this thing built into the religion that says it can never be wrong.

I can't believe people are still using the term agw. That means anthropogenic global warming. They changed it to climate change because there are places where it's not warming and then wanted to say that that's the fault of this global warming to.

I remember predictions when I was a kid that by 2005 we would be all underwater because the ice caps melt. And those predictions are either put in the memory hole or they say well then what we were doing worked. Releasing carbon into the atmosphere by gassing on about how releasing carbon into the atmosphere is bad seems not to be a cogent thought.

 

If you notice that if you disagree with people about that they resort to poop flinging.

We will attack you personally. they'll call you a conspiracy theorist or science denier or something like that.

It's because their wrong.