Global Warming?

[/pine]

Laugh on bozo.

hehehe...That's rich....did you find that snappy comeback at your Alma mater "wikipedia" :laughing::laughing::laughing:

 

[IslandTractor]

some how i doubt that a cubit was the actual unit of measure, remember the bible koran and Tanakh were all translated from ancient text and were done so that the people of the day could understand.

Right at this moment every scientist is at the peak of his own disciple knowledge. It does not mean that he knows everything that is or will be known about his discipline.

hehehe...That's rich....did you find that snappy comeback at your Alma mater "wikipedia" :laughing::laughing::laughing:

Slash my friend, get your head out of your *** and contribute something interesting once in a while other than copying quotations you barely think through. As most readers, I was well aware of Crighton and his history well before Wikipedia was a word. Given that I worked for thirty years in the same institution he trained, his contributions were well known and his role as a popular science fiction author well regarded. He is not a scientist however and no more qualified than anyone else who reads and studies to make judgments on how science works.

Try to be a little more creative today. Your troll skills are already well developed but surely you can find something better to do.

 

[/pine]

Slash my friend, get your head out of your *** and contribute something interesting once in a while other than copying quotations you barely think through. As most readers, I was well aware of Crighton and his history well before Wikipedia was a word. Given that I worked for thirty years in the same institution he trained, his contributions were well known and his role as a popular science fiction author well regarded. He is not a scientist however and no more qualified than anyone else who reads and studies to make judgments on how science works.

Try to be a little more creative today. Your troll skills are already well developed but surely you can find something better to do.

Hiding behind that keyboard you can claim or say you're anything your pathetic soul desires (Ad nauseam)...when you resort to name calling etc. (like when someone strikes a nerve) you expose yourself for what you really are :8ball:...Which BTW...I am still laughing at...:laughing::laughing::laughing:

 

[2LaneCruzer]

Slash my friend, get your head out of your *** and contribute something interesting once in a while other than copying quotations you barely think through. As most readers, I was well aware of Crighton and his history well before Wikipedia was a word. Given that I worked for thirty years in the same institution he trained, his contributions were well known and his role as a popular science fiction author well regarded. He is not a scientist however and no more qualified than anyone else who reads and studies to make judgments on how science works.

Try to be a little more creative today. Your troll skills are already well developed but surely you can find something better to do.

According to "Wikipedia", Michael has a degree in Biological Anthropology, and an M.D. from Harvard, with some post grad studies. Your statement: "He is not a scientist however and no more qualified than anyone else who reads and studies to make judgments on how science works." seems to be at odds with his training. If one assumes, for the sake of argument that his failure to practice in accordance with his training would somehow "disqualify" him from being a scientist, it seems to me that he is more than equipped to make judgements on how science works, at least as compared to the layman who is not trained in science. I suppose, if your definition of "anyone else who reads and studies", includes individuals with the equivalent of a B.S. degree and an M.D. degree, then he would be no more qualified. However, I would tend to give more deference to his scientific qualifications and opinions than someone with a Political Science degree topped off with a J.D. from Harvard.

 

[IslandTractor]

According to "Wikipedia", Michael has a degree in Biological Anthropology, and an M.D. from Harvard, with some post grad studies. Your statement: "He is not a scientist however and no more qualified than anyone else who reads and studies to make judgments on how science works." seems to be at odds with his training. If one assumes, for the sake of argument that his failure to practice in accordance with his training would somehow "disqualify" him from being a scientist, it seems to me that he is more than equipped to make judgements on how science works, at least as compared to the layman who is not trained in science. I suppose, if your definition of "anyone else who reads and studies", includes individuals with the equivalent of a B.S. degree and an M.D. degree, then he would be no more qualified. However, I would tend to give more deference to his scientific qualifications and opinions than someone with a Political Science degree topped off with a J.D. from Harvard.

I wouldn't say that undergraduates studying science usually are doing research but rather preparing to do it if they continue with graduate studies. Yes they do small projects and might have a small role in big science projects but most people wouldn't call them scientists. MD training is certainly not research oriented and MD researchers acquire skills a research fellows or in combined MD PhD programs. MD training doesn't start to cover research or methodology issues in depth until after residency and the majority of MDs never study such things. They learn to read a paper but not how to generate publishable research. MDs are all clinicians but only a few are also research scientists.

Anyone is entitled to hold an opinion but Crighton's opinion is just that of an educated thoughtful person with a background in medicine. Nothing wrong with that but it is hardly the opinion of a professional research scientist. As for whether Gore or Crighton is better qualified to judge the validity of climate science, I would rank them about equal and both well below any PhD in the field. I'd also rank both of them below a research scientist in an even vaguely related field.

 

[/pine]

I wouldn't say that undergraduates studying science usually are doing research but rather preparing to do it if they continue with graduate studies. Yes they do small projects and might have a small role in big science projects but most people wouldn't call them scientists. MD training is certainly not research oriented and MD researchers acquire skills a research fellows or in combined MD PhD programs. MD training doesn't start to cover research or methodology issues in depth until after residency and the majority of MDs never study such things. They learn to read a paper but not how to generate publishable research. MDs are all clinicians but only a few are also research scientists.

Anyone is entitled to hold an opinion but Crighton's opinion is just that of an educated thoughtful person with a background in medicine. Nothing wrong with that but it is hardly the opinion of a professional research scientist. As for whether Gore or Crighton is better qualified to judge the validity of climate science, I would rank them about equal and both well below any PhD in the field. I'd also rank both of them below a research scientist in an even vaguely related field.

Blather on...oh toothless one...:laughing::laughing:

 

[IslandTractor]

Blather on...oh toothless one...:laughing::laughing:

Maybe your laugh is a nervous tic. Get it checked out.

 

[EE_Bota]

Anyone see the special about green agenda?
Fox News Reporting: Behind *****'s Green Agenda | Episode Guides | Fox News Reporting
Dug into a lot of interesting facts.

I saw it, and I thought it was fascinating. I liked the part where they revealed that certain environmental groups get grants from the EPA and they sue the EPA over some issue, and are granted an immediate and easy win in many cases, and then reimbursed for their legal fees. One would hope the fees would at least be meager.

 

[Rainbody]

I saw it, and I thought it was fascinating. I liked the part where they revealed that certain environmental groups get grants from the EPA and they sue the EPA over some issue, and are granted an immediate and easy win in many cases, and then reimbursed for their legal fees. One would hope the fees would at least be meager.

The sustainability stuff alone was crazy. Couldn't believe it has a social justice component. Really got to ask if this is good for country, business (jobs) , or individual freedom. The answer is pretty obvious.

 

[toppop52]

There is one good side about man-made global warming. "IF" we are experiencing man-made global warming, there will never be another ice age.

Because if another ice age approaches, then all we have to do is what we are now doing and it will go away.

Drive more gas guzzlers!:thumbsup:

I see in week off that you guys have brought this dissuasion of ideals to a grand conclusion; "I'm right and you're wrong! Nanny, nanny, boo boo!