|
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the
"scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right? http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
Gosh, wouldn't it be refreshing to have them say, for a change, "We don't know"? They don't know. I don't know. But I do know they don't know the temperatures of a few hundred years ago - and certainly not a few thousand. I gotta think this whole warming nonsense is nothing more than a tool for those that wish our technology would just plain stop. Pure politics. I am old enough to remember when the same folks were spouting off about "global cooling". Go ahead - say "I don't know". Yeah, right. Dale |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
Bert Robbins wrote: Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the "scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right? http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html They don't "change their minds". They interpret data. When they interpret previously unused data, things change. Have you ever altered your stance on something when you've been given proof that your previous mindset was wrong? |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote: Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the "scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right? http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html They don't "change their minds". They interpret data. When they interpret previously unused data, things change. Have you ever altered your stance on something when you've been given proof that your previous mindset was wrong? Yes, I have altered my stance. At one time I thought you were just a mindless twit but, now I know you are a mindless twit. |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
"FishWisher" wrote in message
oups.com... But I do know they don't know the temperatures of a few hundred years ago - and certainly not a few thousand. How do you KNOW that? |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
But I do know they don't
know the temperatures of a few hundred years ago - and certainly not a few thousand. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: How do you KNOW that? It must be true, he heard it on right-wing hate-talk radio. All this environmentalist crap is from the limp-wristed libby-rulls who want the gov'mint to take away your SUV... it's the first step towards taking away your guns... next they'll outlaw NASCAR and chewin' tobacco... DSK |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
Bert Robbins wrote: Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the "scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right? http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html Lost my good job in the city For trollin' through the groups every night and day I've been known to lose one whole lot of sleep Staring at the sceen to think of somethin' to say My need for self expression Trumps courtesy or discretion So I'm trollin', trollin', Trollin' through the newsgroups. Talked a lotta trash in rec.boats Repeatin' things from PBS or FOX TV Gotta take ahold of these usenet groups To glorify the White House or the DNC My need for self expression Trumps courtesy or discretion So I'm trollin', trollin', Trollin' through the newsgroups. When you drop into the newsgroup You know you're gonna find a lot of people who spin It don't really matter who you flame or who you insult It's an argument that nobody can win My need for self expression Trumps courtesy or discretion So I'm trollin', tgrollin', Trollin' through the newsgroups. Trollin', trollin', Trollin' through the newsgroups. |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
FishWisher wrote: Gosh, wouldn't it be refreshing to have them say, for a change, "We don't know"? They don't know. I don't know. But I do know they don't know the temperatures of a few hundred years ago - and certainly not a few thousand. I gotta think this whole warming nonsense is nothing more than a tool for those that wish our technology would just plain stop. Pure politics. I am old enough to remember when the same folks were spouting off about "global cooling". Go ahead - say "I don't know". Yeah, right. Dale Dale, Like you, I remember back in the 70's or 80's all the "experts" were talking about global cooling, all the news reports about the coming ice age, it was everywhere. And then the weather started getting warmer, and they stopped talking about the next ice age, and started talking about global warming. Didn't they blame it on the same gasses? I remember when they tried to blame it on Freon getting up there and destroying the ozone layer. One little problem, Freon's heavier than air, it stays down here with us, not up in the ozone layer, they stopped talking about it. I guess the "experts" changed their minds about global cooling. Anyone want to guess what they'll come up with 10 or 20 years from now when it starts to cool off again? Unfortunately, the young people of today never heard these reports, they were too young, or weren't born yet. So they beleave what their told and taught. And the news people are just looking for a story, they don't really care if it's true or not, their just telling you what the experts said, that's their out. Anyone that knows anything about statistics can tell you a one degree change in a short period of time (400 years out of the life of this planet is less than a blink of an eye, over thousands of years, you may have something) is insignificant. But hey, it keeps all the "experts" off unemployment. |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 07:42:02 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote: basskisser wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the "scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right? http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html They don't "change their minds". They interpret data. When they interpret previously unused data, things change. Have you ever altered your stance on something when you've been given proof that your previous mindset was wrong? Yes, I have altered my stance. At one time I thought you were just a mindless twit but, now I know you are a mindless twit. Bert, why don't you post where in the NAS's report they have revised any data from 400 years to 2000 years. Obviously, all of the mind changing, twisted logic, and (dis)information is coming from your "breitbart" source. Since you are relying on them for the "facts," why don't you explain the accuracy of their article: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/0....07o4imol.html which was posted the same day as the NSA report? They really seem to be challenged by the facts as much as Santorum was. You guys just don't value fact checking prior to disclosure very much do you? Last night's news reported comments FROM THE PENTAGON which said the mustard gas was virtually useless at the time of our arrival, and dated back as far as the Iran-Iraq war. They added that these were not the types of weapons they considered to be a priority. Some must think the Pentagon is now a hotbed of left-wing thinking. |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
Bert Robbins wrote: basskisser wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the "scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right? http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html They don't "change their minds". They interpret data. When they interpret previously unused data, things change. Have you ever altered your stance on something when you've been given proof that your previous mindset was wrong? Yes, I have altered my stance. At one time I thought you were just a mindless twit but, now I know you are a mindless twit. Childish and petty name calling certainly does nothing for your credibility. Grow up. |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
Bert Robbins wrote: basskisser wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the "scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right? http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html They don't "change their minds". They interpret data. When they interpret previously unused data, things change. Have you ever altered your stance on something when you've been given proof that your previous mindset was wrong? Yes, I have altered my stance. At one time I thought you were just a mindless twit but, now I know you are a mindless twit. I see that you are incapable of debating the issue. Just like Rush and Sean, when you can't bring real and honest data to the table, start childish name calling. |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
Capt John wrote: FishWisher wrote: Gosh, wouldn't it be refreshing to have them say, for a change, "We don't know"? They don't know. I don't know. But I do know they don't know the temperatures of a few hundred years ago - and certainly not a few thousand. I gotta think this whole warming nonsense is nothing more than a tool for those that wish our technology would just plain stop. Pure politics. I am old enough to remember when the same folks were spouting off about "global cooling". Go ahead - say "I don't know". Yeah, right. Dale Dale, Like you, I remember back in the 70's or 80's all the "experts" were talking about global cooling, all the news reports about the coming ice age, it was everywhere. And then the weather started getting warmer, and they stopped talking about the next ice age, and started talking about global warming. Didn't they blame it on the same gasses? I remember when they tried to blame it on Freon getting up there and destroying the ozone layer. One little problem, Freon's heavier than air, it stays down here with us, not up in the ozone layer, they stopped talking about it. Not true! even though is heavier than air, it will mix and by current, get into the stratosphere easily, when in it's gasseous state: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env256.htm |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
|
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
|
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
Gene Kearns wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 07:42:02 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote: basskisser wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the "scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right? http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html They don't "change their minds". They interpret data. When they interpret previously unused data, things change. Have you ever altered your stance on something when you've been given proof that your previous mindset was wrong? Yes, I have altered my stance. At one time I thought you were just a mindless twit but, now I know you are a mindless twit. Bert, why don't you post where in the NAS's report they have revised any data from 400 years to 2000 years. Obviously, all of the mind changing, twisted logic, and (dis)information is coming from your "breitbart" source. Gene, I guess you missed the by lines of the articles where it said that the were AP (Associated Press wire service news articles). Does that change your view of the veracity of the articles or is the AP now a dis-information section of the RNC? Since you are relying on them for the "facts," why don't you explain the accuracy of their article: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/0....07o4imol.html which was posted the same day as the NSA report? No I am not relying upon Brietbart, I am relying upon their sources which are AP and AFP (http://www.afp.com/english/afp/?pid=history) for the ariticles I referenced and the one you referenced. "AFP is the world's oldest established news agency, founded in 1835 by Charles-Louis Havas, the father of global journalism. Today, the agency continues to expand its operations worldwide, reaching thousands of subscribers via radio, television, newspapers and companies from its main headquarters in Paris and regional centers in Washington, Hong Kong, Nicosia and Montevideo. All share the same goal: to guarantee top quality international service tailored to the specific needs of clients in each region." They really seem to be challenged by the facts as much as Santorum was. You guys just don't value fact checking prior to disclosure very much do you? Gene you have stuck both feet in your mouth this time. If one of your left wing buddies had posted eigher |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote: basskisser wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the "scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right? http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html They don't "change their minds". They interpret data. When they interpret previously unused data, things change. Have you ever altered your stance on something when you've been given proof that your previous mindset was wrong? Yes, I have altered my stance. At one time I thought you were just a mindless twit but, now I know you are a mindless twit. I see that you are incapable of debating the issue. Just like Rush and Sean, when you can't bring real and honest data to the table, start childish name calling. Kevin, have you been smoking what you grow in your parents basement lately? |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. .. Obviously, all of the mind changing, twisted logic, and (dis)information is coming from your "breitbart" source. Gene, I guess you missed the by lines of the articles where it said that the were AP (Associated Press wire service news articles). Does that change your view of the veracity of the articles or is the AP now a dis-information section of the RNC? OK - let me get this straight: - If you (and I mean YOU, not "someone") spent time interviewing a scientist, could you write an article in which you accurately represented what he had told you? It's a simple question. Yes, or no. |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. basskisser wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: basskisser wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the "scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right? http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html They don't "change their minds". They interpret data. When they interpret previously unused data, things change. Have you ever altered your stance on something when you've been given proof that your previous mindset was wrong? Yes, I have altered my stance. At one time I thought you were just a mindless twit but, now I know you are a mindless twit. I see that you are incapable of debating the issue. Just like Rush and Sean, when you can't bring real and honest data to the table, start childish name calling. Kevin, have you been smoking what you grow in your parents basement lately? You just proved his point, Bertie. |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. Obviously, all of the mind changing, twisted logic, and (dis)information is coming from your "breitbart" source. Gene, I guess you missed the by lines of the articles where it said that the were AP (Associated Press wire service news articles). Does that change your view of the veracity of the articles or is the AP now a dis-information section of the RNC? OK - let me get this straight: - If you (and I mean YOU, not "someone") spent time interviewing a scientist, could you write an article in which you accurately represented what he had told you? Yes. It's a simple question. Yes, or no. Asked and answered. |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. basskisser wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: basskisser wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the "scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right? http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html They don't "change their minds". They interpret data. When they interpret previously unused data, things change. Have you ever altered your stance on something when you've been given proof that your previous mindset was wrong? Yes, I have altered my stance. At one time I thought you were just a mindless twit but, now I know you are a mindless twit. I see that you are incapable of debating the issue. Just like Rush and Sean, when you can't bring real and honest data to the table, start childish name calling. Kevin, have you been smoking what you grow in your parents basement lately? You just proved his point, Bertie. Thanks Doug Kanter. Are you stalking me now along with you buddy Harry? |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. basskisser wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: basskisser wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the "scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right? http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html They don't "change their minds". They interpret data. When they interpret previously unused data, things change. Have you ever altered your stance on something when you've been given proof that your previous mindset was wrong? Yes, I have altered my stance. At one time I thought you were just a mindless twit but, now I know you are a mindless twit. I see that you are incapable of debating the issue. Just like Rush and Sean, when you can't bring real and honest data to the table, start childish name calling. Kevin, have you been smoking what you grow in your parents basement lately? You just proved his point, Bertie. Thanks Doug Kanter. Are you stalking me now along with you buddy Harry? Stalking you? When people jump on your silly comments, you consider it stalking? |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
"basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... Bert Robbins wrote: Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the "scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right? http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html They don't "change their minds". They interpret data. When they interpret previously unused data, things change. Have you ever altered your stance on something when you've been given proof that your previous mindset was wrong? So let's talk about Schnapps and Whiskey... |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the "scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right? http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html They do have it right, Bert. Give the most logical explanation that best fits the available evidence. When new evidence arises, adjust the explanation to fit the evidence. Is there something wrong with this objective approach to understanding our world? |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
Bryan wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the "scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right? http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html They do have it right, Bert. Give the most logical explanation that best fits the available evidence. When new evidence arises, adjust the explanation to fit the evidence. Is there something wrong with this objective approach to understanding our world? Science is nothing more than observation and consensus. You observe something and then you look for consensus of your observation by your "peers." This consensus can be biased by political and economic considerations. Does the phrase "it is accepted in the scientific community" cause you to sit up and say what do you mean "accepted?" It does with me because it means that it is not all objective. |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
NOYB wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... Bert Robbins wrote: Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the "scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right? http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html They don't "change their minds". They interpret data. When they interpret previously unused data, things change. Have you ever altered your stance on something when you've been given proof that your previous mindset was wrong? So let's talk about Schnapps and Whiskey... ROTFLMAO! |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
Bert Robbins wrote: basskisser wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: basskisser wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the "scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right? http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html They don't "change their minds". They interpret data. When they interpret previously unused data, things change. Have you ever altered your stance on something when you've been given proof that your previous mindset was wrong? Yes, I have altered my stance. At one time I thought you were just a mindless twit but, now I know you are a mindless twit. I see that you are incapable of debating the issue. Just like Rush and Sean, when you can't bring real and honest data to the table, start childish name calling. Kevin, have you been smoking what you grow in your parents basement lately? Bert, first, are you ready to take the $5000 challenge to prove that I'm not Kevin? Put up or shut up, it's as simple as that. Next, what to HELL are you talking about? Do you have some sort of evidence that me or Kevin, or anyone is growing anything in anybody's basement? Again, put up, or shut up. It's as simple as that. Now, go watch Sean and Rush refresh your brain.... |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
NOYB wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... Bert Robbins wrote: Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the "scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right? http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html They don't "change their minds". They interpret data. When they interpret previously unused data, things change. Have you ever altered your stance on something when you've been given proof that your previous mindset was wrong? So let's talk about Schnapps and Whiskey... That's been proven by me. Don't remember? Laughing gas getting to your brain? Did you figure out exactly what length of time "almost instantaneous" is? How long IS it? |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. Bryan wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the "scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right? http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html They do have it right, Bert. Give the most logical explanation that best fits the available evidence. When new evidence arises, adjust the explanation to fit the evidence. Is there something wrong with this objective approach to understanding our world? Science is nothing more than observation and consensus. You observe something and then you look for consensus of your observation by your "peers." This consensus can be biased by political and economic considerations. Does the phrase "it is accepted in the scientific community" cause you to sit up and say what do you mean "accepted?" It does with me because it means that it is not all objective. No. The scientific method involves observation, hypothesis, testing and measurement. The data is analyzed; a new observation stage. A new hypothesis based on the previously unknown or incomplete data. More testing and measurement. And so on. The consensus you speak of comes from submitting the experiment and the data to the scientific community via peer reviewed journals. Your peers are then expected to challenge your data and conclusions through repeating the experiment to verify the veracity of your data and looking for flaws in the structure or design of your experiment, data, and conclusions. It is through the peer review of your work by reputable scientists and repetition of your experiments that consensus is formed. Concensus is based on data that is subject to challenge by your peers. Accepted means the data has been determined to be valid and sound by the reputable scientific community after withstanding scrutiny by your peers. Peers is the group of scientists who practice the scientific method as the means to understanding our physical world. Peers does not refer to some knucklehead who took 10th grade biology nor to an idividual who has an emotionally driven agenda. And, again, science uses existing data derived from observation, experimental design, testing and measurement, subject to peer review, to explain our world and new data to improve the explanation. |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 08:42:06 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: ********************************* No one is stalking you, dipstick. Why would anyone want to? You're just another mindless, right-wing twerp, a pansy, someone who drops in here every so often to drop off a small load of crap. Christ, Bert, if anyone really wanted to "stalk" you, they'd show up in person and punch you in your pimple-infested nose. It's not like you're man enough to do anything about it. Get a life. ********************************** The quote above was written by...an adult! -- John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 08:42:46 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Thus spake the idiot. Another quote from an...adult! -- John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
Harry Krause wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. basskisser wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: basskisser wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the "scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right? http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html They don't "change their minds". They interpret data. When they interpret previously unused data, things change. Have you ever altered your stance on something when you've been given proof that your previous mindset was wrong? Yes, I have altered my stance. At one time I thought you were just a mindless twit but, now I know you are a mindless twit. I see that you are incapable of debating the issue. Just like Rush and Sean, when you can't bring real and honest data to the table, start childish name calling. Kevin, have you been smoking what you grow in your parents basement lately? You just proved his point, Bertie. Thanks Doug Kanter. Are you stalking me now along with you buddy Harry? No one is stalking you, dipstick. Why would anyone want to? You're just another mindless, right-wing twerp, a pansy, someone who drops in here every so often to drop off a small load of crap. Christ, Bert, if anyone really wanted to "stalk" you, they'd show up in person and punch you in your pimple-infested nose. It's not like you're man enough to do anything about it. Get a life. Every time I make a post you, Don or Doug Kanter as respond. It appears that the three of you need to get lives. |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
basskisser wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote: basskisser wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: basskisser wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the "scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right? http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html They don't "change their minds". They interpret data. When they interpret previously unused data, things change. Have you ever altered your stance on something when you've been given proof that your previous mindset was wrong? Yes, I have altered my stance. At one time I thought you were just a mindless twit but, now I know you are a mindless twit. I see that you are incapable of debating the issue. Just like Rush and Sean, when you can't bring real and honest data to the table, start childish name calling. Kevin, have you been smoking what you grow in your parents basement lately? Bert, first, are you ready to take the $5000 challenge to prove that I'm not Kevin? Put up or shut up, it's as simple as that. Next, what to HELL are you talking about? Do you have some sort of evidence that me or Kevin, or anyone is growing anything in anybody's basement? Again, put up, or shut up. It's as simple as that. Now, go watch Sean and Rush refresh your brain.... Ok, Kevin, who are you. There is no need to put up $5000. Every body has a name or have you toked up too much that you can't remember your name and you need the $5000 to pay the Private Detective to find yourself. |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
Bryan wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. Bryan wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the "scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right? http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html They do have it right, Bert. Give the most logical explanation that best fits the available evidence. When new evidence arises, adjust the explanation to fit the evidence. Is there something wrong with this objective approach to understanding our world? Science is nothing more than observation and consensus. You observe something and then you look for consensus of your observation by your "peers." This consensus can be biased by political and economic considerations. Does the phrase "it is accepted in the scientific community" cause you to sit up and say what do you mean "accepted?" It does with me because it means that it is not all objective. No. The scientific method involves observation, hypothesis, testing and measurement. The data is analyzed; a new observation stage. A new hypothesis based on the previously unknown or incomplete data. More testing and measurement. And so on. The consensus you speak of comes from submitting the experiment and the data to the scientific community via peer reviewed journals. Your peers are then expected to challenge your data and conclusions through repeating the experiment to verify the veracity of your data and looking for flaws in the structure or design of your experiment, data, and conclusions. It is through the peer review of your work by reputable scientists and repetition of your experiments that consensus is formed. Concensus is based on data that is subject to challenge by your peers. Accepted means the data has been determined to be valid and sound by the reputable scientific community after withstanding scrutiny by your peers. Peers is the group of scientists who practice the scientific method as the means to understanding our physical world. Peers does not refer to some knucklehead who took 10th grade biology nor to an idividual who has an emotionally driven agenda. And, again, science uses existing data derived from observation, experimental design, testing and measurement, subject to peer review, to explain our world and new data to improve the explanation. What you have described is boils down to observation and consensus. |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
Harry Krause wrote:
JohnH wrote: On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 08:42:06 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: ********************************* No one is stalking you, dipstick. Why would anyone want to? You're just another mindless, right-wing twerp, a pansy, someone who drops in here every so often to drop off a small load of crap. Christ, Bert, if anyone really wanted to "stalk" you, they'd show up in person and punch you in your pimple-infested nose. It's not like you're man enough to do anything about it. Get a life. ********************************** The quote above was written by...an adult! -- John H Yeah, well, you're about one-half step up the evolutionary ladder from Bert. Been playing with the four year olds on the playground and picking up bad habits again Harry? |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
Bert Robbins wrote:
Every time I make a post you, Don or Doug Kanter as respond. It appears that the three of you need to get lives. We consider it a public service...... somewhat like vermin control. |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
"Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. JohnH wrote: On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 08:42:06 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: ********************************* No one is stalking you, dipstick. Why would anyone want to? You're just another mindless, right-wing twerp, a pansy, someone who drops in here every so often to drop off a small load of crap. Christ, Bert, if anyone really wanted to "stalk" you, they'd show up in person and punch you in your pimple-infested nose. It's not like you're man enough to do anything about it. Get a life. ********************************** The quote above was written by...an adult! -- John H Yeah, well, you're about one-half step up the evolutionary ladder from Bert. John posted a personal attack on me just today, yet he rides his painted pony in this group flashing his Sheriff's badge telling others to stop doing the same thing he just did to me. Amazing. |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
Don White wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote: Every time I make a post you, Don or Doug Kanter as respond. It appears that the three of you need to get lives. We consider it a public service...... somewhat like vermin control. Well, you need to go back to school because you haven't been able to exterminate me. |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. basskisser wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: basskisser wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: basskisser wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the "scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right? http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html They don't "change their minds". They interpret data. When they interpret previously unused data, things change. Have you ever altered your stance on something when you've been given proof that your previous mindset was wrong? Yes, I have altered my stance. At one time I thought you were just a mindless twit but, now I know you are a mindless twit. I see that you are incapable of debating the issue. Just like Rush and Sean, when you can't bring real and honest data to the table, start childish name calling. Kevin, have you been smoking what you grow in your parents basement lately? Bert, first, are you ready to take the $5000 challenge to prove that I'm not Kevin? Put up or shut up, it's as simple as that. Next, what to HELL are you talking about? Do you have some sort of evidence that me or Kevin, or anyone is growing anything in anybody's basement? Again, put up, or shut up. It's as simple as that. Now, go watch Sean and Rush refresh your brain.... Ok, Kevin, who are you. There is no need to put up $5000. Every body has a name or have you toked up too much that you can't remember your name and you need the $5000 to pay the Private Detective to find yourself. You're such a little detective! |
What Happened 2000 Years Ago?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. .. Bryan wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. Here we go again. It's only been a couple of hours and the the "scientists" are changing their minds. Will they ever get it right? http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/D8IDK16G0.html They do have it right, Bert. Give the most logical explanation that best fits the available evidence. When new evidence arises, adjust the explanation to fit the evidence. Is there something wrong with this objective approach to understanding our world? Science is nothing more than observation and consensus. You observe something and then you look for consensus of your observation by your "peers." This consensus can be biased by political and economic considerations. Does the phrase "it is accepted in the scientific community" cause you to sit up and say what do you mean "accepted?" It does with me because it means that it is not all objective. Newton needed no consensus, nor did Einstein. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com