Would a pipeline corrosion specialist area of expertise have ANYTHING to do with climate science?

(05-21-2013 09:27 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Is a pipeline corrosion specialist a scientist?

By trade? No.

Now it's your turn to answer a simple question.

Is a geoscientist a scientist?

(05-21-2013 09:28 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Would a pipeline corrosion specialist area of expertise have ANYTHING to do with climate science?

Petty ad hominem attack. And wrong. Atmospheric conditions play a big role in corrosion, and if your job is to protect against it, you're going to spend a lot of time paying attention to the atmosphere, including details such as Cl- concentration, temp, pH, ozone, UV. And if those change over time, you'll pay attention to that too.

I just came from a project review of activities at Akron's NCERCAMP, and have been part of reviews of various universities and organizations this year alone. I know something about these fields.

Quote:Was it peer reviewed? Yes.

Tell me how you think or "feel" this survey was peer reviewed? Because the Forbes author put it into the title? Is that your qualification?

Did you get that from pullitoutmya**.com?

A geoscientist is definitely a scientist.

(05-21-2013 09:44 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

Quote:Was it peer reviewed? Yes.

Tell me how you think or "feel" this survey was peer reviewed? Because the Forbes author put it into the title? Is that your qualification?

It's funny, you have no clue how you embarrassed yourself with the above.

If you are going to claim that this survey was not peer reviewed, then it is incumbent upon you to show evidence of it. The article states "according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies."

Now then, if you can show me something that says Organization Studies was not peer reviewed, then I'm happy to see it.

(05-21-2013 09:47 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  A geoscientist is definitely a scientist.

Well done.

Next question. Were geoscientists part of the group surveyed by the little mach and dmac alarmists?

Congrats Niner, you found a peer reviewed study of professionals in the petro industry that is skeptical on how much of a crisis global warming is. The peer review process came from the area of management. Congrats. Compelling.

(05-21-2013 10:49 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Congrats Niner, you found a peer reviewed study of professionals in the petro industry that is skeptical on how much of a crisis global warming is. The peer review process came from the area of management. Congrats. Compelling.

Mach you are fine to disregard it because you don't agree with it. That is your right. But what you're not fine to do is lie about what was said, distort the points that were made, or try and make it some kind of right wing conspiracy. You don't like the results. You don't agree with the results. That's fine. There's nothing wrong with stating that and leaving it at that. No one is served by you or dmac distorting or lying about what the article actually said.

Do YOURSELF a favor and read the study on what the Forbes article is based. Then come back here with your tail between your legs. You were duped brainiac.

(05-21-2013 11:31 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Do YOURSELF a favor and read the study on what the Forbes article is based. Then come back here with your tail between your legs. You were duped brainiac.

I did. How about you read it and post for us what from the study contradicts what was said in the article. See princess that's how the adults engage in a debate. They offer little things called evidence to support their claims.

Your claim. I was "duped." Offer some evidence to back it up. I know this is where you go into convulsions because in your pea brain you believe everyone should just take your word for it. Real world doesn't work that way princess.

Put up or shut up.

(05-21-2013 08:01 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-21-2013 07:42 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta

Congrats NINER. You've trumpeted a "survey" polling pipeline corrosion specialists. Kudos.

Uh, dmac started the thread. Blame him if you're upset.

(05-21-2013 07:40 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/...80-degrees

Start here:

JAMES TAYLOR MISINTERPRETS STUDY BY 180 DEGREES

In a Forbes op-ed, James Taylor takes a study that prominently reveals the anti-science influence of oil and gas companies, and spins it to suggest that serious, substantive disagreement exists among relevant scientists on climate change.

Uh, aren't you the one who criticizing pulling editorial commentary from the web. Anyway, note how your source makes a capricious distinction as to who is a "relevant" scientist on climate change. In short, if an individual agrees w/ the author he's "relevant", if not, it's considered spin to include his opinion.

So it's your catastrophists who continue to stifle the debate. They hate science, they hate data, they hate anything that doesn't fit w/ their agenda. It's a religion, and you all have the gall to criticize churches from 500 years ago? Hypocrites.

This. Climate science is to science as phrenology and astrology are to science. Calling it science is an insult to science.

(05-21-2013 12:15 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  This. Climate science is to science as phrenology and astrology are to science. Calling it science is an insult to science.

Phrenology came to mind for me too.

(05-21-2013 12:17 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-21-2013 12:15 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  This. Climate science is to science as phrenology and astrology are to science. Calling it science is an insult to science.

Phrenology came to mind for me too.

Don't they feel and interpret the size of Walt's ass hole?

And somehow you clowns still conveniently ignore that a large majority of respondents believe that global warming is either man-made, or both natural and man-made. The survey does not back up the authors claim.

(05-21-2013 12:49 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  And somehow you clowns still conveniently ignore that a large majority of respondents believe that global warming is either man-made, or both natural and man-made. The survey does not back up the authors claim.

Does the majority agree, that even if that is true, that it is indeed a "crisis"?

(05-21-2013 12:49 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  And somehow you clowns still conveniently ignore that a large majority of respondents believe that global warming is either man-made, or both natural and man-made. The survey does not back up the authors claim.

No one is ignoring it because no one, including the author, claimed otherwise.

I laid this out as simply as I could for you on the first page. Unfortunately I can't draw you pictures. Though I doubt even that would help.

(05-21-2013 12:49 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  And somehow you clowns still conveniently ignore that a large majority of respondents believe that global warming is either man-made, or both natural and man-made. The survey does not back up the authors claim.

You failed this once. Repeating it won't make it true.

Seems like you have no business being concerned about what some private school is teaching their kids, when you have failed miserably in every pursuit you've put on this forum.

(05-21-2013 01:01 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-21-2013 12:49 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  And somehow you clowns still conveniently ignore that a large majority of respondents believe that global warming is either man-made, or both natural and man-made. The survey does not back up the authors claim.

No one is ignoring it because no one, including the author, claimed otherwise.

I laid this out as simply as I could for you on the first page. Unfortunately I can't draw you pictures. Though I doubt even that would help.

Your post on the front page has very little to do with the survey in question.

(05-21-2013 01:31 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(05-21-2013 01:01 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-21-2013 12:49 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  And somehow you clowns still conveniently ignore that a large majority of respondents believe that global warming is either man-made, or both natural and man-made. The survey does not back up the authors claim.

No one is ignoring it because no one, including the author, claimed otherwise.

I laid this out as simply as I could for you on the first page. Unfortunately I can't draw you pictures. Though I doubt even that would help.

Your post on the front page has very little to do with the survey in question.

My post has everything to do with what you posted. I systematically took apart your entire original post. You have yet to address a single point I made. You have made general, unsubstantiated, responses as if we're just supposed to take your word for it. Doesn't work that way here.

Either explain yourself or shut up.