NAI spews fuel all over MCO runway
07-14-2019, 12:11 PM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 746
07-14-2019, 12:31 PM
#34
Banned
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 1,192
Originally Posted by Joachim
If you told me 20 years ago that pilots would become part of the figurative boat anchor that the scientific and intellectual elite would have to contend with I wouldn’t have believed you. Most of you “know-better-than-scientists “ won’t even watch this and if you do you’ll probably remain firmly planted in your alternate “reality” by some delusional rationalization.
Anyway, don’t know the guy or channel but what he says rings true:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XirnEfkdQJM
Anyway, don’t know the guy or channel but what he says rings true:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XirnEfkdQJM
https://www.climatedepot.com/ has a good run down on the reality of so-called man made climate change.
Last edited by Slaphappy; 07-14-2019 at 12:54 PM.
07-14-2019, 01:29 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 746
Originally Posted by Slaphappy
Thats because you get all your "scientific data" from late night talk shows and youtube videos.
https://www.climatedepot.com/ has a good run down on the reality of so-called man made climate change.
https://www.climatedepot.com/ has a good run down on the reality of so-called man made climate change.
N.B. That website of yours is exactly what I’m talking about. No references besides something to the effect of “scientist in Finland”. When it comes to science, it isn’t appropriate to be anti-establishment. Listen to the people who actually dedicate their lives to studying this **** instead of some quackery website that fits your comfortable but delusional narrative!
Drop that website and pick up a White-paper instead.
Last edited by Joachim; 07-14-2019 at 01:41 PM.
07-14-2019, 01:47 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2016
Posts: 128
Originally Posted by Slaphappy
Thats because you get all your "scientific data" from late night talk shows and youtube videos.
https://www.climatedepot.com/ has a good run down on the reality of so-called man made climate change.
https://www.climatedepot.com/ has a good run down on the reality of so-called man made climate change.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence
07-14-2019, 01:55 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 824
Originally Posted by BoldPilot
After doing just a little research into the man who started this site. Marc Morano belongs to a political party that I can’t name because of censorship on this web forum. He has no science degree but a degree in political science. Which is the same thing right? He quoted in a blog “"We should kick scientists when they're down. They deserve to be publicly flogged". Is this a place we should be going to get our information from? He sounds like a man who is hell bent on destroying the reputation of scientists whose only job is to study and observe the world. The internet is a dangerous place. I’m sure I can find a few “good articles” on how the earth is apparently flat. Oh... here we go!
https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence
https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence
“all these flight instructors who say that stalls come from exceeding the critical angle of attack are part of a grand conspiracy to fool you. Check out this one guy with a degree in art history at his website www.airlinepilotrealpatriotfacts.com who says differently. Check mate sheeple”
07-14-2019, 04:28 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,584
Originally Posted by Slaphappy
You make it sound like it's a majority, it's not and many of the "Scientists" who are sounding the alarm have no qualifications to make those predictions.
Here is a rundown of the often quoted 97% talking point and why it's wrong.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph-...-97-1401145980
Here is a rundown of the often quoted 97% talking point and why it's wrong.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph-...-97-1401145980
The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.
07-14-2019, 04:29 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,584
Originally Posted by Andy
Yes, we all need to learn the NEW scientific method, as used by CAGW alarmists:
Make an observation.
Conduct research.
Form hypothesis.
Test hypothesis.
Alter data because the hypothesis doesn't work.
Retest hypothesis.
Alter data again because the hypothesis still doesn't work.
Retest hypothesis.
Alter data again because the hypothesis still doesn't work.
Screw the data; make outrageous claims that aren't based on science but make it sound all sciency to fool the large population of human lemmings.
The new and improved scientific method.
Make an observation.
Conduct research.
Form hypothesis.
Test hypothesis.
Alter data because the hypothesis doesn't work.
Retest hypothesis.
Alter data again because the hypothesis still doesn't work.
Retest hypothesis.
Alter data again because the hypothesis still doesn't work.
Screw the data; make outrageous claims that aren't based on science but make it sound all sciency to fool the large population of human lemmings.
The new and improved scientific method.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
