In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1487
Online now 1422 Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)
The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web
The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts
"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion
"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion
This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion
The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets
For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Our own RP fell hook line and sinker for this one.
It just illustrates the depths that those blinded by leftist ideology will resort to.
As do your delusional beliefs in science.
Like I've said, if you or a family member has cancer be sure to give your oncologist a science quiz to make sure all your ideas about science match up.
This post was edited by GRR Spartan 2 years ago
and yet you take at face value a blogger blinded by right wing ideology.
But I will give this hack (and those simpletons who would link his articles) some leeway - the mainstream media did provide a hell of a lot more coverage to "climategate" than they did the findings that the story in itself was trumped up and the "scandal" was debunked and therefore the gullible public bought into a lie being true. So while opinions "declined" it wasn't because of fact, it was because of dishonesty and misinformation, the only thing the right knows.
An academic board has largely cleared Dr. Michael E. Mann of misconduct arising from the unauthorized release of more than 1,000 e-mail messages.
Climate Gate 2.0 - more emails have been released in an attempt to discredit man-made global warming and climate change science.
"If you have the right to be offended I have the right to offend you." - Ricky Gervais
Science isn't a leftist ideology you rocket scientist you.
Reality does not care that Al Gore is a self serving idiot just like Rush Limbaugh. It is what it is. Science is a tool that attempts to discover with experimentation what hypotheses on reality are true.
I can readily agree that our ability to predict what happens when we dump tons and tons of gas into the atmosphere is probably piss poor, but that there are real ignoramuses out there proudly and intentionally ignorant about the world, and that these are the people against contraception, that's disturbing.
You are no better than the mullahs out there asking for Salman Rushdie to be killed without having read his damn book.
Yeah, right. Tell the to scientists from Copernicus on down.
I must be crazy to be in a loony bin like this.
So you post an opinon piece from a conservative political web site as refuteation that the Heartland Insitute is working not to promote science but to attack science...hmmmmmm...now why would this question even be asked when the Heartland Insitute admits that is what they do?
Lurking on tRCMB since 1996
I love how the author of the righty piece is gleeful over the "Climategate" scandal (would be nice if he had any way of actually demonstrating that the credibility of the warmists has been destroyed), but then accuses the "warmists" of desperately latching on to anything which might serve to advance their cause. Classic move.
GRR, your cancer analogy really isn't working for you here. A more apt cancer analogy would be, say, if you or a family member has cancer and you read up about a clinic in Mexico that promises a cure (that would be the "warmest") and so you go down there rather than listen to other opinions (in our analogy that would be the scientists who don't believe in the gw cult) from your local oncologists.
Your assumption that all scientists support gw is clearly wrong, hence your trite analogy fails big time.
Thanks for playing along though.
So you are saying that climategate never really happened and please pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain; he may upset your preconceived notion about gw?
If the science is so solid on gw, why must warmests resort to this kind of stuff?
"Warmests" or warmist?
God I hate this analogy.....so much fail here
What is the prognosis?
What is the treatment?
What is the cost of treatment?
What is the outcome of the treatment?
What is the result of doing nothing?
What experimental treatments are available?
One of the more intolerant posts from the local leftists, and that is saying something.
Of course science is not a leftist ideology. However leftists are misusing science to promote their leftist ideology in the case of gw.
This has nothing to do with contraception. What is disturbing is your willingness to trample on peoples religious views and associate that with something entirely unrelated. Major logic fail, yet a disturbing demonstration of leftist intolerance.
How pathetic to insinuate that because I take the contrary scientific side in the gw warming debate I am equivalent to a mullah advocating murder.
Your post is typical left-wing: hate filled, illogical and intolerant.
At least I can add!
So here is an article telling you what is being done to your mind....a seady stream of propaganda from the conrporate sponsered Hartland group to try to convince you that global warming that a vast majority of science done shows is happening and does corrolate with gases produced by humans which are known to have the effects which are the most probably cause of the warming but which your side says is not happening, will not happen and that there are some people studing science (a vast minority of a few - all being funded by people who would have to change thier raping of the plant if laws were in place to protect us all against disastor) who have said "well maybe not"....all this is exactly the same as companies claiming that ciggerets are good for you and you should smoke 20 packs a day...and when you are dieing of cancern they move on to the next victium...opps I mean customer...
Bob Ward: The documents show how groups play up controversy to undermine confidence in well-established scientific findings
The OP thinks science is a political issue so he'd better have an oncologist who agrees with his views on science.
The fail is the willingness of conservatives to sit back and watch science become a political football. The oil and coal companies are doing the same BS the tobacco companies did for years on a more sophisticated level. Now they have a lot of unsophisticated people with a modicum understanding questioning everything. A great stall while profits roll in and conditions deteriorate.
I thought cost of treatment was evil in conservative ranks. Guess when you are diagnosed we can say its a boatload of money to get the cancer into remission you might want to die?
Wise up. This hacking garbage is faux outrage
You I think have hit the nail on the head with this...
Science always has been politicial...all the way back to the Greeks....with the advent of the modern media age and the inclusion of advertising into media the level of lying made to seem to be the truth has become very very refined and effective...it is very difficult not to begin to believe what the visual media is telling us becuase people have been wroking for 100 years to understand how to sell soap and they are very good at what they do...
That people like RQA are confused by what they see and read should be no surpise.
I honestly do not believe you know what the word "fail" means. The cancer analogy is a good one because at early stages one might feel perfectly fine, i.e. "What's the big deal?, This cancer thing has been way overblown.".
You present a list of questions as if they had not already been asked and examined with significant rigor. Many papers and books largely focused on those very questions have been published. Let me help you a good starting point; I've posted a link to the 2007 AR4 report, below; no doubt one of your favorites. Much of what you ask is discussed in the Working Groups II and III sections. Certainly, as our experience and knowledge continue to expand our conclusions will evolve, just as they've evolved over the past several decades. That evolution has primarily been that of convergence, not divergence.
As several have commented, the disinformation-and-controversy template used to protect vested tobacco industry interests in the past is being fully applied today to protect carbon interests, albeit in a more expansive and highly organized fashion; the "protectors" evolve too. The Heartland Institute is only one of dozens in the foundations/think-tanks/front-groups that serve as useful cogs of today's protection machine. One HI "project" exposed among the stolen emails describes efforts to change the nation's K-12 curriculum relative to climate science. Indoctrinate the controversy.
Sign our petition and stand up for reality. Say NO to climate denial in our schools:
The Heartland Institute's President and CEO just admitted that Heartland is writing a "global warming curriculum" that would say climate science isn't settled. Heartland would like to create the appearance of a scientific debate where there is none by having our teachers claim we just don't know if humans are changing our climate.
This post was edited by Evan Green 2 years ago
SO guess what...Hartland is sending teachers out to tell lies to students,,,they should be fired...
Expert audit finds man connected with climate sceptic thinktank taught climate course to students at Carleton University
What will happen to all those scientists around the world who are being paid from leftist grants to prove man made global warming exists?
Yea because peer review on their papers doesn't mean much, everyone is in on it!
I will also admit I'm not sold 100 percent on gw, however if I had to bet on it I'd bet that humans are effecting the planet to a large degree. After a while the information stacks up.
If you don't know how Science works, don't comment on it.
"No one cares what you know, until they know how much you care." Mark Dantonio
Does the oncologist tell you to not take the chemo while he himself does for his own exact type of cancer?
This post was edited by MSUx2 2 years ago
Peer review works a lot better when the original data is released.
Step out of your industry funded echo chamber. Ninety seven percent of practicing climatologists say we are changing the climate.
You would go to 100 oncologists with 97 saying "if we operate now and do chemo things will be ok in the long term". You're paying attention to the two saying "well you have cancer, but it's no big deal" and the one saying "you don't have cancer at all". Although in all fairness you're really listening to the new age, alternative medicine reps telling you you just need your chakras aligned" (and BTW, they're funded by the Association of Chakra Aligners). Wel done.
I'm worth a million in prizes.
8k posts on the old board. Member since 1999.
You have no idea how science is actually funded do you?
But lets take a different angle. Are you telling me that the most profitable companies on the face of the planet can't hire some "honest" scientists to do "honest research"? They spend tens of millions of dollars every year lobbying and tens of millions more distorting the science by funding places like Heartland (the people who also are funded by tobacco companies to tell you second hand smoke is fine).
The fact of the matter is the oil companies' own scientists told them in the mid 1990s that the climate change science was legit. So they took a page out of the tobacco industry's handbook and went on a PR offensive. Often hiring the same people that tobacco hired. That is what you are buying hook, line and sinker.
If there was a legitimate debate on the science the fossil fuel companies would not have to resort to PR.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports