Popular Science Comments Closed Forever

[Schneibster]

You promised to leave. Why aren't you gone?

I am, as far as you're concerned. Thanks for informing me of who I needed to ignore.

[Diogenes]

I note you're lumping real scientists (referred to by an inflammatory term) with 2 groups of pseudo scientists. "Popular Science" hasn't been a decent science magazine for years.

That would be a "no."

Bye now. I no longer engage with climate trolls who don't know the difference between a scientist and a doctor.

Let the door hit your a$$ on the way out. I guess that would mean any part of you.

[Diogenes]

Just this once.

I'm sure all the climate cranks have an explanation for this: http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-cl ... -pie-chart

14,000 to 25, in round numbers.

Shoot, we'll have global warming fixed while the flatlander deniers still don't believe in it.

I decided to look at your "evidence." I expected to see some sort of scientific argument which showed data readings, charts, math, and some sort of coherent theory. What I saw was a "Fallacy of Authority argument" of the sort that generally comes from Lawyers.




You are a f*cking idiot, and I feel the stupider for having given you the benefit of the doubt. Your argument is basically that of the geocentrists. Galileo must be wrong because THERE ARE SO MANY" OF US WHO SAY SO!

[Diogenes]

Not to give the climate deniers front page,

We have just observed the reflection of light from a massive explosion in the core of the Milky Way that occurred a couple million years ago.

This is not something a billion light years away; it's (obviously) a reflection from a million light years away, right next door in the Local Group. Closer than the Andromeda Galaxy.

This energy passed us by 970 thousand years ago, about the time that Homo Erectus was inventing fire and the wheel and the knife and the spear. Bow and arrow wouldn't come until later.

It's spent all the time since traveling to the galaxies it's now reflecting off of, then getting back here so we could see it.

So much for the creationists. The sheer size of the universe proves them wrong.

http://news.discovery.com/space/astrono ... 130923.htm

Cotton Mather is still hunting witches I see. Finding them behind the bushes are we?

[Diogenes]

You promised to leave. Why aren't you gone?

I am, as far as you're concerned. Thanks for informing me of who I needed to ignore.

Him as well as any evidence which demonstrates what a crock of crap you people are attempting to sell.


Water Vapor Jack@$$! Learn it! Love it ! Live It!

[GIThruster]

As dopey as the guy may be, we all know we can stand some disagreement here. What I object to is the adolescent self-righteerousness and progressive intent that he seems to think quenching dissenting voices is the way to proceed in civil discussion. He sounds like a Nazi.

And you know, this is the biggest problem with the AGW movement: it was never pursued as a scientific discussion. It went straight from unfounded adolescent diatribe to political action without any real discussion. If you'll recall, the first dissenters concerning AGW were a group from Japan who rightly showed the science was laughable (and in fact they laughed about the "silly Americans who can't do math"). Yet Al Gore pushed this in the political arena and we have the trouble we have. Boatloads of scientists signed up to support the AGW and now renamed (because there was no evidence of anthropic cause) Climate Change, with no tools to know how to even look at the situation. We've had now not one but two, international scandals where scientists were definitively shown to have falsified their data to support the political stance of Climate Change and yet, no one looses their teaching position, and society still puts out drones like this guy above.

Sad that science is so easily thrown under the bus.

[Schneibster]

As dopey as the guy may be, we all know we can stand some disagreement here. What I object to is the adolescent self-righteerousness and progressive intent that he seems to think quenching dissenting voices is the way to proceed in civil discussion. He sounds like a Nazi.

Telling you anti-scientific "theories" (actually none of them are actually any better than conjectures, and falsified ones at that) are false is not "Nazi." It's "science."

Wake up.

Diogenes I'm already familiar with. I don't waste my time on posers.

Dude when you're lusing 14000 to 25 I really have to say you look like a nutjob. If it's 50-50 you have an argument; when it's 560-1 you're pretty much holding the short end of the stick. Get over it.

[GIThruster]

Only they're not "anti-scientific views". They're objections to a pseudo-scientific view there is to date NO EVIDENCE FOR.

You want to close down discussion, because you are too feeble minded to actually have an intelligent discussion of these matters.

Just like the progressives who supported eugenics and the slaughter of the jews.

You're a Nazi. Wake up.

[Schneibster]

Only they're not "anti-scientific views". They're objections to a pseudo-scientific view there is to date NO EVIDENCE FOR.

You want to close down discussion, because you are too feeble minded to actually have an intelligent discussion of these matters.

Just like the progressives who supported eugenics and the slaughter of the jews.

You're a Nazi. Wake up.

14000 to 25.

Dude you're a nutjob.

Next up is your phlogiston theory. Or your explanation of why SRT is wrong.

[GIThruster]

No. I, like many here; am one of those who has looked at the data and who understands it. You've been told the temperature of the planet is rising despite the evidence is it's cooling. You've been told the icecaps are smaller than in recorded history despite they're near their maximum value the last 20 years. You're told CO2 is a dangerous greenhouse gas despite its contribution to greenhouse effect is minuscule as compared to water vapor.

The difference between us is not that I'm informed when you are not (though that is an important difference) but rather that you believe what you're told whereas I believe in looking at the data myself.

You believe what you're told based on authority, same as the Nazis who believed in eugenics did,; and despite the fantastical damage your erroneous view will do to countless lives, you continue on pretending you know what you do not, and pretending you have no responsibility for the damage being done by your fraudulent views.

You belong at Pop Sci. They don't do real science there. You should be right at home.

[Schneibster]

Look, it's really simple, they're geophysicists and you're not.

Get

over

it.

Fourteen thousand to twenty five. What do you need, jebus to come down from a hole in the sky and confirm it?

[GIThruster]

Like I said, you're taking someone's word based on authority. I'm looking at the data. And no, they're not geophysicists. What a stupid thing to say.

Just FYI, back in the early 90's during the 2 years I TA'd Environmental Ethics at PSU, I taught this stuff. I believed as you do. It was only after that I found all the fraud. At least I found it. You haven't even looked at the issues. You're just mocking those you disagree with and pretending that's the "scientific" view.

You're a drone.

[Betruger]

This is due to climate deniers, physics cranks, and creationists polluting the comments to such an extent it was no longer possible to hold a conversation. All the people who knew anything got chased off by the cranks invading the volunteer staff, and when you logged on to Popular Science to get an answer to a scientific question you were more likely to get a wrong answer than a right one.

Last I checked (many many months ago) you were still allowing climate deniers here. (That's why I haven't checked in a long time.)

Indeed this is basically unmoderated. For sure you're going nowhere fast if you can't argue or can't temper your passions with reason.
Not allowing climate deniers would be equivalent to just what you reproach climate deniers of. Stifling reason.

Can we discuss polywell fusion now?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Are the physics cranks and climate cranks gone

Paranoia

or are you going to start harshly and heavily moderating them?

MSimon is effectively "the" moderator. Maybe you should inform yourself on his idea of moderating before asking... before getting all wound up with misdirected sanctimony

Or should I come back in a couple years to see if you're sane yet? Because I have no intention of patronizing any climate crank sites.

More self-serving monologue... Is this what you think is quality "conversation"?

Dude when you're lusing 14000 to 25

Truth is not democratic.

[Schneibster]

Indeed this is basically unmoderated. For sure you're going nowhere fast if you can't argue or can't temper your passions with reason.

Fourteen thousand to twenty five looks like pretty good reasoning to me. It seems what you want me to do is pretend I'm wrong when you lost fourteen thousand to twenty five.

I think you need medication for your obsession. Or else you can't count.

Fourteen thousand to twenty five isn't democratic. It's overwhelming and you're wrong, period. Get over it. If you can't get over it get medication so you don't wreck your life worrying about it; folks who know way way more have it all under control.

[GIThruster]

Oh my gosh. . .me and Betruger defending each other's views?

But I have to agree with him. He is after all right fairly often. And I would note to you too, that this is true of many of the liberals here.

So far as I can tell, we have about an even split between liberals and conservatives here. That often leads to rousing discussions. Most of the time however, we don't see things like cheesy name calling, character assassination, and labeling like "racist". Most of us, most of the time, are above such things. there are times when someone whipped into a frenzy might resort to such stuff but that is rare given the huge number of disagreements we have here.

You OTOH, have already formed a pattern of doing nothing but the name calling, character assassination, etc.. You've yet to make a cogent argument that goes to the issue through the facts. The closest you've come is to note this lopsided publishing in peer review journals. Let me note to you though, two things:

First, almost all of the people writing in those journals are academics who rely upon the funding that comes from the AGW hype. Without the hype they'd need to get real jobs in fields they're competent in. With the funding, anyone in academia with a degree in science, can pretend their opinion is worth something, and this is surely what the vast bulk of these publications are the result of. These are not climatologists. They're people who like you, are taking their lead from the popular opinion rather than from science.

Second I'd note to you that Betruger is ENTIRELY CORRECT when he notes that truth is NOT the result of a vote. The vast and overwhelming majority of the German population, as well as progressives all around Europe and America, all believed the eugenics nonsense that had been popularized for years, and this is what led to gassing the Jews. The overwhelming majority thought this was good science, and note, we did not enter that war until we were attacked, so powerful was this progressive madness at that time.

Indeed, the majority can be wrong and often is.