Scientists Used To Actually Do Science

20 Responses to Scientists Used To Actually Do Science

1. Dave G says:

   January 12, 2016 at 7:15 am

   Real science requires getting off your duff and looking at things… Playing around with computer models is much for fun… I mean you can control the outcome and stuff.

   Reply
2. Robertv says:

   January 12, 2016 at 8:37 am

   GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

   Station Data: Harare (Kutsa (17.9 S,31.1 E)

   http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=156677750000&dt=1&ds=14

   Maybe GISS forgot to update this station.

   Reply
   • Steve Case says:

     January 12, 2016 at 11:25 am

     Maybe GISS forgot to update this station.

     Don’t worry, they’ll get around to it.

     Reply
3. ralfellis says:

   January 12, 2016 at 9:47 am

   And they don’t like it when people have contrarian ideas. You must conform…….

   Clive Best has a really good summary of the “dust-ice-albedo” theory for ice age modulation – and therefore for global temperature control. It is not an idea that the establishment likes to talk about too much, but it is logical and likely….

   http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=7024

   .

   Reply
   • Martin Smith says:

     January 12, 2016 at 11:18 am

     ral, you’re right that it’s not an idea that we like, but we do talk about it, and we talk about it a lot more than Clive Best. Here is where we begin our discussions:

     http://darksnow.org/

     Reply
     • Doug says:

       January 12, 2016 at 12:44 pm

       We?

       Reply
       • Martin Smith says:

         January 12, 2016 at 12:49 pm

         Me and everyone else who is interested in the Dark Snow project, Doug.
       • skeohane says:

         January 12, 2016 at 8:10 pm

         From the darksnow.org link, a Martin Sharp…Could that be the source of ‘We-ness’?
         https://uofa.ualberta.ca/earth-atmospheric-sciences/people/person/msharp
       • Martin Smith says:

         January 12, 2016 at 8:22 pm

         Because we both have the same given name? Is it really so foreign to you to think that I might just find the subject interesting? Aren’t you genuinely interested in climate science? The greenhouse effect? Anthropogenic global warming? If you’re not actually interested in these subjects, what are you doing?
       • skeohane says:

         January 13, 2016 at 1:51 pm

         I was a denier before you were born.
       • Gail Combs says:

         January 13, 2016 at 2:42 pm

         Mart is not interested in climate science, The greenhouse effect, Anthropogenic global warming

         He calls it reall peer-reviewed papers SPAM. He is only interested in PROPAGANDA like that found in SkS.
       • Martin Smith says:

         January 13, 2016 at 5:36 pm

         Gail, your posts are silly.
4. gator69 says:

   January 12, 2016 at 10:42 am

   Everything has its price.

   Reply
5. lorne50 says:

   January 12, 2016 at 5:21 pm

   Martin hum guess you be the clod from climate deniers blog do believe I called you SS cook O:-)

   Reply
   • Martin Smith says:

     January 12, 2016 at 8:42 pm

     Hi lorne. I don’t smoke the weed. My body’s a temple.

     Reply
     • lorne50 says:

       January 12, 2016 at 9:42 pm

       That’s good the rectal gases would light your head on fire (head up ass and all)

       Reply
       • Martin Smith says:

         January 12, 2016 at 9:47 pm

         Don’t quit your day gig, lorne.
       • lorne50 says:

         January 12, 2016 at 9:51 pm

         I get gas out of the ground you spout shit out of your mouth 😉
6. omanuel says:

   January 13, 2016 at 3:57 pm

   The basic principles of science are as sacred to real scientists as Catholicism is to the Pope.

   But we almost all failed to seriously consider the warning in George Orwell’s two books

   1. “Animal Farm” on the rise of Comminism before WWII, and
   2. “Nineteen Eighty-Four” on the rise of a new form of Communism based on

   Falsehoods disguised as unanimous, consensus scientific conclusions.

   On pages 153-154 of his 1994 autobiography, “Home Is Where The Wind Blows”, Sir Fred Hoyle explains the rise of unanimous, consensus science immediately after WWII:

   Fred Hoyle and everyone he knew in the field of astronomy and astrophysics agreed that the interior of the Sun was:

   1. Mostly iron (Fe) in 1945, but
   2. Mostly hydrogen (H) in 1946

   and the change in opinions was unanimous, with no discussion or debate.

   Most real scientists could not believe our government capable of purposefully deceiving the public after WWII, until Climategate emails finally forced us to consider that fact in 2009.

   The future seems bleak today, but I am absolutely certain that ancient scriptures will be confirmed:“Truth is victorious, never untruth.”

   Reply
   • Martin Smith says:

     January 13, 2016 at 5:42 pm

     “Falsehoods disguised as unanimous, consensus scientific conclusions.”

     If your argument is that the consensus is always wrong, it’s a pretty silly argument.

     Reply