Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by mocgator, Oct 21, 2013.
We're talking about fred here tho... are you actually surprised?
The good people at Exxon Mobil thank you.
This is an instant classic... Well done MichiGator.
A hhh come on Freddy. Really?
And I thank them, for not being windmill twirling Luddites . What does that have to do with the dial-a-name "science"?
I wouldn't expect you to know.
They are the leading funders of the deniers' "science."
Nobody with any respect for science, let alone, y'know, themselves, would treat a field no more than thirty or forty years old and which literally renames itself every decade or so, to be beyond scientific scrutiny or challenge. Period. What you have is a cult, sir.
You have a place for the Neo hippies and anti capitalists to hang out. Where else can they go now that the Grateful Dead don't tour anymore.
I'll take the word of 97% of scientists over the good folks at BP. You go worship on your own altar.
Personally I like opposing points of view. Especially when presented respectfully by both sides.
I wonder if your (completely preposterous) stat community would like to match actual accomplishments in science and engineering with the guys at BP and ExxonMobil...
Or the Exxon guys could show off the whip marks on their backs.
This post is totally stable.
Even you should not like censorship. Hell, we let you and Fred keep posting your silly opinions.
Nothing like censoring a view you don't agree with, or more likely can't tolerate because it's making your own views look foolish. No wonder newspapers are falling out of favor.
People, people nothing to see hear. Science is always right.
In early days, the world was made out of 5 elements: earth, fire, wind, water, and ether.
Later the earth was flat, anyone who thought otherwise was crazy.
Also, when Newtonian physics falls apart, lets invent a different laws in quantum physics.
Light is a wave and a particle we are not sure.
Point is science is never wrong. Can't have blasphemous opinions.
If I am a newspaper editor and there is scientific evidence of some phenomenon occurring and then someone writes a letter that simply denies its existence, should I really feel obligated to publish it?
What about Holocaust deniers? Flat Earthers?
One can publish both the point and counter-point, but both should be based on empircal fact and reason. Not publishing a letter because the person simply denies the existence of something that is empirically documented seems perfectly fine to me.
In any case, here is what the Editor of the LA Times actually wrote:
BTW, gentleman I'm well aware the LA times is private. When I use the term shady I'm not suggesting it's illegal. They are a news outfit and I think ignoring letters is not the right thing to do. Climate change has not been defined like gravity has, c'mon with comparing the two.
There are experts with advanced degrees who don't agree. Nobody can even define what this is. Seems to be a lot of faith and hope behind it.