Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

Pavlov republicans vote for trumpet's nomination.

Any plans to return to kindergarten for basic science lessons and management classes described as "fake news" by trumpet's twitter headline monologue.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...888_story.html

It is confirmed that he will get his own gold plated, Space Invaders arcade machine for his plush, newly built office in sprawling, colonial mansion style. Said to cost in the region of several billion dollars allowing for private 'phone cubicles in every office and weapons grade file shredders in every corner. Not to mention a 17 room private suite entirely decorated and furnished with original Louis 14th wallpaper and furniture. Priceless Great masters, confiscated from national museums,l will adorn the walls.

The private parkland surrounding his private office complex are to be landscaped to Capability Brown standards with newly formed lakes and hills. Specimen, fully mature trees will be brought in from all round the world and established by a tea, of cough terrorformers.

Endangered wild animal species will roam free for his own private shooting parties to enjoy at their leisure during cough work time breaks and extended holidays. A brand new, trumpet class, private golf course will be established, entirely at nasa's expense and overlooking the ocean, for the exclusive use of his fellow republicans.

AGW denier, yes, but not even a young-earth Creationist, never mind a flat-earther.

John Savard

On 20/04/2018 08:32, Quadibloc wrote:

AGW denier, yes, but not even a young-earth Creationist, never mind a flat-earther.

Certainly a science denier though even if he is keen on space
exploration. Rubio voted for him whilst holding his nose.

Odd choice for NASA - lets see what sort of mess he makes of it.

Pity that Flake flaked out and voted to put him into post.
(seems to have been via a backroom deal over Cuba travel)

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 00:32:16 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

AGW denier, yes, but not even a young-earth Creationist, never mind a flat-earther.

There is no difference between denying AGW and being a flat-earther
(or a young Earth creationist, or an anti-vaxxer). The mentality is
identical.

Once a person is willing to accept as true that which is objectively
false, they have failed intellectually and certainly don't belong in
any position of authority.

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 7:24:34 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 00:32:16 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

AGW denier, yes, but not even a young-earth Creationist, never mind a
flat-earther.

There is no difference between denying AGW and being a flat-earther
(or a young Earth creationist, or an anti-vaxxer). The mentality is
identical.

This is complete bull plop. There are many points about AGW that are
questionable to anyone with an open mind.

Once a person is willing to accept as true that which is objectively
false, they have failed intellectually and certainly don't belong in
any position of authority.

Anyone who is willing to accept ANY theory without critical thought is
just a groupie and a bootlicker. It's even worse when such folk use
personal attacks and brown-shirt tactics to quell any opposition to
their shaky position.

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 07:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 7:24:34 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 00:32:16 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

AGW denier, yes, but not even a young-earth Creationist, never mind a
flat-earther.

There is no difference between denying AGW and being a flat-earther
(or a young Earth creationist, or an anti-vaxxer). The mentality is
identical.

This is complete bull plop. There are many points about AGW that are
questionable to anyone with an open mind.

Yeah. Like the kind of feedback clouds provide. Not the fact that the
Earth is warming dramatically and the cause is the human release of
fossil carbon into the atmosphere. That isn't questioned at all,
except by flat-earthers like yourself.

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 10:04:47 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 07:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 7:24:34 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 00:32:16 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

AGW denier, yes, but not even a young-earth Creationist, never mind a
flat-earther.

There is no difference between denying AGW and being a flat-earther
(or a young Earth creationist, or an anti-vaxxer). The mentality is
identical.

This is complete bull plop. There are many points about AGW that are
questionable to anyone with an open mind.

Yeah. Like the kind of feedback clouds provide. Not the fact that the
Earth is warming dramatically and the cause is the human release of
fossil carbon into the atmosphere.

Unsubstantiated assertion. Correlation doesn't necessarily imply
causation.

That isn't questioned at all,
except by flat-earthers like yourself.

See? You resort to Nazi tactics instead of cogent discussion. You
violate many admonishments from Sagan's baloney detection kit:

https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/0...it-carl-sagan/

Things one shouldn't do:
1. Ad hominem attacks
2. Argument from authority
3. Argument from adverse consequences
12. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

Things you should do:
2. Encourage substantive debate
4. Spin more than one hypothesis
5. NIH
9. Falsifiability

One can only conclude that YOU are full of baloney :-)

On Saturday, 21 April 2018 12:04:47 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 07:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 7:24:34 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 00:32:16 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

AGW denier, yes, but not even a young-earth Creationist, never mind a
flat-earther.

There is no difference between denying AGW and being a flat-earther
(or a young Earth creationist, or an anti-vaxxer). The mentality is
identical.

This is complete bull plop. There are many points about AGW that are
questionable to anyone with an open mind.

Yeah. Like the kind of feedback clouds provide. Not the fact that the
Earth is warming dramatically and the cause is the human release of
fossil carbon into the atmosphere. That isn't questioned at all,
except by flat-earthers like yourself.

Stop trying to link questioning of bad global warming science with flat earth, Ufologists, etc.

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 8:55:34 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

There are many points about AGW that are
questionable to anyone with an open mind.

I'm sorry, but that is simply not true.

Using critical thinking before accepting a new idea is indeed a good thing.

But most people accept that the world is round and not flat, at bottom, not
because they've understood the science and figured it out for themselves, but
because they trust the official scientists who get to write the
textbooks more than Joe random guy who made a YouTube video.

Some people have brought forth superficially convincing arguments
that the Earth is flat, even though it isn't. The same can be done with
global warming - and here there's money involved.

Environmentalists certainly do deserve to be looked at with skepticism.
They've cried wolf before, and many of them don't seem to have come to grips
with what it takes to feed the world's existing population, or what it took
to keep from losing the Cold War.

But you don't seem to have noticed that the world's scientists, who look
at new theories skeptically for a living, and who are the experts on
this kind of stuff, have now accepted AGW as part of what science knows
about the world around us. Like the round Earth, like evolution by natural
selection, like the Special and General theories of Relativity.

And that fact means that one should direct a withering skepticism towards
Fox News rather than towards the scientific community.

John Savard

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 2:37:55 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 8:55:34 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

There are many points about AGW that are
questionable to anyone with an open mind.

I'm sorry, but that is simply not true.

Hi John,

I think it is. I mentioned previously about cloud cover and cosmic rays.
That was certainly not in the climate models and we don't understand to
what extent that process affects GW (note: that would NOT be AGW). We're
going into a "quiet sun" period that may last decades and the solar wind
has allowed cosmic rays to increase by 15% over the past few years.

Another problem with the models is that they don't directly account for
the biggest greenhouse gas: water vapor. A multiplying factor is applied
to the CO2 content to account for water vapor indirectly, but such a
strategy reduces the accuracy of the model.

Third, the warming effect of CO2 concentration is not linear; i.e., it tends
to saturate. I don't know the details of this but it's my understanding
that the multiplier for CO2 used to be about six but it is presently around
two. Could it be that this reduction is because of a saturation factor?
How can one have any confidence in a model that has that kind of uncertainty
in it?

Using critical thinking before accepting a new idea is indeed a good thing.

But most people accept that the world is round and not flat, at bottom,
not because they've understood the science and figured it out for
themselves, but because they trust the official scientists who get to
write the textbooks more than Joe random guy who made a YouTube video.

I'm not "most people." I didn't accept the conclusions of special relativity
until I studied the assumptions and derived the equations myself. Actually,
I start out accepting what scientists say, then have second thoughts, then
dig through it myself and end up agreeing or disagreeing. You are talking
about the FIRST step, which is where "most people" are, and which step they
never graduate from.

Some people have brought forth superficially convincing arguments
that the Earth is flat, even though it isn't. The same can be done with
global warming - and here there's money involved.

Not the same thing at all. Flatness is a property of geometry, and geometry
is very simple. GW is not simple at all, let alone AGW. Comparing AGW
skepticism to an inability to do geometry is extremely offensive and serves
only to cause polarization. People who behave like Peterson are doing no
favor to the AGW believers.

Environmentalists certainly do deserve to be looked at with skepticism.
They've cried wolf before, and many of them don't seem to have come to grips
with what it takes to feed the world's existing population, or what it took
to keep from losing the Cold War.

Indeed.

But you don't seem to have noticed that the world's scientists, who look
at new theories skeptically for a living, and who are the experts on
this kind of stuff, have now accepted AGW as part of what science knows
about the world around us. Like the round Earth, like evolution by natural
selection, like the Special and General theories of Relativity.

Any science where one can't perform experiments should be viewed with a
healthy dose of skepticism. Relativity has been thoroughly tested in a
local framework, but cosmological models based on GR makes assumptions
which may not be correct.

And that fact means that one should direct a withering skepticism towards
Fox News rather than towards the scientific community.

John Savard

Sorry, John, but I believe the jury is still out. And "withering" responses
when one expresses some skepticism smacks of totalitarian tactics. How can
one have confidence in AGW when warm temperatures are claimed to support AGW
and cooler temperatures are also claimed to support AGW? That kind of
baloney makes the theory unfalsifiable. IOW, unscientific.

Gary