Subscribe for 33¢ / day
Mike Jawson

Mike Jawson

Science, whether the subject of investigation is physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, agriculture, natural resources, communications, economics, climate, human interactions with each other and their environment, uses the same methodology.

This methodology is a way of learning that is based on rigorous experimental designs, data collection and analyses with the goal of developing ever better questions and answers.

The application of scientific principles through engineering and technology has led to many improvements, as we are well aware of, in our health and well-being. Basic science, primarily publicly funded, led to the technological applications that have been the primary force behind the advances, among many others, in health care, communications, agricultural productivity and environmental protection. Science is the engine that has and continues to power our economy. Just think how many of us now use computers and smart phones in our jobs and personal activities.

Do scientists make mistakes? Yes, and as humans they embody all our behaviors, both good and bad. Does research sometimes result in ambiguous and conflicting results? Again, yes. Have some of the products and byproducts of technology, such as pollution and some pharmaceuticals, been of dubious value if not downright harmful? Yet again the answer is obviously yes. But this has not been due to the scientific method. The detrimental outcomes of technology are primary because of our human frailties, greed, short-sightedness, ideologies, politics and moral and ethical lapses. The scientific enterprise itself is a self-correcting process that learns from its errors and continues to make improvements as experimental designs, measurements and analyses improve. It is primarily further scientific research that has corrected technological errors when they’ve occurred. Science only seeks to provide facts, information and knowledge. Scientific integrity is a necessity. The National Academy of Science describes scientific integrity as following ethical principles of honesty, the golden rule, trustworthiness and high regard for the scientific record. Knowingly twisting facts to suit our ideologies is antithesis to the scientific method.

Science is independent of political ideology. The laws of nature and the scientific description of them apply to all of us (think gravity as a trivial example). Just because some of its findings are inconvenient and challenge our viewpoints or beliefs does not invalidate the scientific process or its results. A cafeteria approach with picking and choosing which information to “believe in or deny” is not rational. Certainly when results are ambiguous, more and better studies are needed. Unanimous conclusions seldom occur because of the human element. If you really think you would be better off by denying scientific information and the degradation of scientists, then throw away your smart phone, disregard the advice of your physicians when at least 97 percent of their colleagues agree with them and contaminate your water and air to the levels they were before environmental regulations. To disinvest in science is, to say the least, to imperil our well-being and that of future generations.

The relationship between science and democracy must not continue to erode. I, for one and along with many others, choose not to support an impoverished future and will therefore join fellow scientists for the Science March on Earth Day, April 22 in Washington, D.C. Activities supporting these marches are being conducted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and many other professional science organizations. This march is not being undertaken by disgruntled individuals or organizations, but rather its participants are concerned citizens, many of whom have never previously participated in an activity like this before, because they value our way of life and their desire to see it to continue to improve.

Please join in local activities to show your support for the integrity of science. There are more than 400 activities scheduled nationwide on April 22 including some in La Crosse. Science is critically important to all Americans for a safer, healthier, more prosperous and better-informed world.

Sign up to get each day's obituaries sent to your email inbox

Mike Jawson of La Crosse is a retired scientist and science manager in the natural resources and environmental fields, including serving as director of the USGS Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center in La Crosse.

2
0
0
0
0

(99) comments

MidwestAtheist

Oldhomey-

Good work on completely dismantling Bug's arguments once again. However, he has selective amnesia about these things. I've taken down his claims around the CDC 'whistleblower' before, and explained that one can always go back and mine data from a study to find outliers within specific subpopulations that are outliers, and tried to explain that this is just statistical noise and that he apparently doesn't understand how scientific studies and statistical analyses work- but it was all wasted breath.

He will be back again next month on the next science/vaccine-related article, spouting the same nonsense as if this conversation had never happened....

Cassandra

He thinks that if he keeps repeating the lies often enough he can convince people to believe them or at least sow confusion.

Buggs Raplin

The "What Really Happened" web site has a 6 minute video on all the snow Europe is receiving along with colder than normal temperatures. The tulips are covered in snow. Snow? Yes, the form of precip that the global warming religionists said would be a thing of the past. > Looks like the US will be getting some too. Happy spring everybody.

Cassandra

Citing paranoid, conspiracy theory-laden websites hardly strengthens your position, Chippy. Try citing peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Buggs Raplin

The "Rense" web site today has a column by Jon Rappoport entitled "Julie and the Boys" which features William Thompson, Julie Gerberding, and corruption at the CDC.

Snow Cougar Mary Burke

In the movie / book Atlas Shrugged, science became the tool of the political. class. It allowed opportunity for Washington bureaucrats to gain more power.

The 'State Science Institute' had determined the newly-invented metal used for a new “John Galt Line” railroad is unproven and possibly unsafe. The metal, a brilliant invention of industrialist Hank Rearden, is absolutely safe.

The politicians used false "science" to discredit this metal since the owner of the new metal design failed to turn his company and his secrets to the metal over to government "for the common good". In reality, the State Science Institute is controlled by Washington power brokers. There is no actual science being conducted - only lies to mislead public opinion and keep the bureaucrats in power.

Politicians of today are trying to use false science of the global warming scheme to empower and enrich themselves.

oldhomey

Brilliant. Just brilliant. Snow cites the plot line of a piece of fiction written by a novelist most people put aside and forget after outgrowing their sophomoric "intellectualism" in later college years. Snow uses this dubious piece of fiction as though it establishes a solid intellectual and factual base to undermine the authenticity of the scientific method and -- who? Most scientists?

Where do you want such a specious argument like this to lead, Snow? To advertising on television recommending smoking Marlboros as a healthy way to curb appetites and encourage weight loss? To agree to let Detroit to do away with those expensive airbags, safety breaks and seat harnesses as liberal silliness? To allow drug companies to begin marketing thalidomide again because it really works as a mild sleeping sedative?

You, who elsewhere crowed about the Bill of Rights being your manifesto on this post snark about the inherent dishonesty of government working "for the common good"? You, who professionally get on these posts, paid by the Koch brothers silent money political organizations to distribute their propaganda, warn us of politicians using "false" science as a scheme to empower and enrich themselves? You, who openly and proudly redistributed anti-Democrat propaganda generated by the Russian intelligence operation Guccifer 2.0 during the last presidential election have the temerity to get on here with this sort of absolute garbage? You, Snow, have to be kidding.

Cassandra

Citing Ayn Rand hardly strengthens your case, Cougar.

Buggs Raplin

Science has been politicized by the elite who desire a carbon tax. A new fundamentalist religion has been founded by an indoctrinated segment of the population. Bill Nye is a latter day Cotton Mather brandishing fear to try to sell an idea for which there is NO evidence. Trying to tell human-caused global warming 'faithful' that it's a big lie, is akin to trying to tell a devout Christian that there's no evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. Ah, the power of religion on the human mind.

oldhomey

My two recent posts are intentionally trying to trap Buggs Raplin into responding to some questions rather than ducking them under false premises. If he is man enough to do so, I predict his answers will be no answers, just his usual accusation that oldhomey is the biggest liar in the world, a CIA plant sent to La Crosse to neutralize Buggs' superb "truth-telling" and a champion astroturfer. I am actually a little excited to see how he is going to respond. This is a serious discussion on this board about respect for the truth and for the scientific method and how it serves humanity. It is important that subverters like Buggs Raplin are called out and their methodologies be exposed. At least that is how I look at it.

Buggs Raplin

oldhomey has an aversion to truth; he tries to stamp it out at every opportunity.

oldhomey

Just devastating, Buggs. However, read the posts in this string and weep.

Buggs Raplin

Astroturf: when you lose, claim victory

oldhomey

Oh, my! Here is another post of mine Buggs wants to duck because there is, he falsely (and typically) alleges, no option left at the end of it by the Tribune for him to respond. C'mon, Buggs! Man up, now that you have no excuse, and respond:

oldhomey Apr 22, 2017 11:26pm
So now Thompson is guilty of a crime, but he is the hero of this episode? And you are criticizing the CDC for allowing him to speak out without firing him? It is SO impressive, Buggs, that it is your "understanding" that the fraudulent study has been used to deny compensatory damages. Do you have any "understandings" on any other subjects under the sun that we should all be aware of because of your apparent vast storage of knowledge? I would prefer, however, that you show some evidence rather than understanding in this case, perhaps producing the anguished cases of parents denied compensation because of this research. And, Buggs, how do you square the idea that only black male preschoolers three and under suffer elevated incidence of autism after receiving the mumps, measles and rubella MMR vaccine? Are they so genetically different from black female preschoolers or preschoolers of any other race and ethnicity that only they would suffer this side effect? Or was it because of the children studied in this instance the black males three years old and younger were over-represented because so many of them were attending an Atlanta pre-school for autistic preschool boys? Please explain this to us Buggs.

Buggs Raplin

William Thompson was 'outed' in a recorded phone conversation with Dr. Brian Hooker. He confessed his guilt over what he and his colleagues had done, and gave his opinion that what they did was criminal. It was. He is still employed at the CDC. He has remained silent. Common sense dictates that the CDC would hold a news conference and Thompson would go along with oldhomey's obfuscation of the link between the MMR vaccine and autism. That has not happened. Thompson had been recorded as saying the CDC asked him to lie about it, but he said he was through lying.

oldhomey

You seem to suffer some ambiguity on your feelings toward William Thompson, Buggs. He is the criminal who now is standing tall, willing to lie no more? He still works at the CDC, so now you can have it both ways? He was caught lying, now he is telling the truth but his truth is a lie because the anomaly was proven, there is no appreciable difference in the occurrence of autism in African American males and the rest of humanity due to MMR vaccines, because MMR vaccines have no bearing on autism? And your partial, though entirely false reply here interestingly does NOT touch on your insistence -- one that verges on racist stereotyping -- that African American boys who received the MMR vaccine before age three are more prone to children of any other race and gender to become autistic.

Buggs Raplin

No, I don't agree with your characterization. Thompson is someone who did something terribly wrong. His guilt has gnawed at him for a long time. To his credit, he did express his concerns about the fraudulent study to the head of the CDC, Julie Gerberding, who did nothing. Gerberding left the CDC five years later for a job at Merck, which makes the MMR vaccine, which was found to have caused autism in some children in the 2002 study. And so it goes. In this life, people do terrible things, but some of them later admit their wrongdoing. Others do not, like Julie Gerberding, and the other authors of that fraudulent study. I wonder how they live with themselves. oldhomey, I wonder how you live with yourself.

oldhomey

Buggs, you continue to ignore the findings of the anomaly behind figures that Thompson brought out. Male African American toddlers three years and younger who receive the MMR vaccine are no different than toddlers of either gender and any race who receive the MMR vaccine at age three years and younger. What makes you think they WOULD be genetically different than any other youngsters. Answer me, or I will put it at the top of the string again, so that you can't duck me because of your coy inability to do so without the proper option.

oldhomey

I CERTAINLY don't want to deny Buggs the chance to making mince meat of me and my positions simply because he pretends that he does not know how to respond to a post when it only has a "report" option. Heavens to Betsy! I also CERTAINLY don't want to falsely accuse him of going into hiding. So, as a full-service critic of all things Buggs, I am herewith reprinting the two posts he thinks he has successfully ducked. It is now up to him to decide whether or not to respond to them:

oldhomey Apr 22, 2017 9:48pm
Well, Buggs, of course you would call a one page story in Time or Newsweek a major story. I am sure anybody working at one of those publications would say it is a very routine story. And, since you want to dispute me on this, tell us why you for years insisted that Time and Newsweek were for years in the 1970s running repeated cover stories playing up global cooling? They ran two stories about global cooling in the 1970s, neither one a cover story. Will you for once agree that you have misspoke or were misled or something that would indicate that you are retracting your position on what the media did with global cooling in the 1970s? No, you won't, I suspect.

Isn't it interesting that, when pushed, you all of a sudden can recall the name of the mysterious but prominent UW-L physicist who champions your cause? And you seem to want to drape him in scientific honor because he was photographed upon his retirement standing next to that academician you have spent SO MUCH time on these posts honoring and praising, Joe Gow. Whatever port in the storm that you can find, eh, Buggs? I may have more to say about this.

Report
oldhomey Apr 22, 2017 10:27pm
So let's get back to Dr. Rafique, Buggs. In accusing me of lying in an earlier post of yours on this very same string, you said: "I'm acquainted with a former long time professor at UW-L with a doctorate in climatology who says it's a hoax."

I Googled Dr. Ahmed and found he is NOT a climatologist, but has his doctorate in geography, of which he was a professor. Were you lying in this instance, Buggs, or was it just a mistake?

Back to Dr. Ahmed. I also Googled his letter to the editor published in September, 2015 on this site, backing up your global warming denier position. He let it be known that he was a PhD scientist, and he then took a position that seemed to have been cut and pasted from a denier site, like that of the Koch brother's Heartland Institute.

Several people responded on here as I did, asking him to state his area of scientific expertise and whether he had ever studied climate change as a scientist. To refresh your memory, I will cut and paste exactly what I said:

"If Dr. Ahmed has done research and has produced evidence that shows that there is no human causation to current global warming trends, he should produce that evidence to his scientific peers for review. That is how science works, no ifs, ands or buts. But if Dr. Ahmed is using his academic credentials merely to posit a crackpot opinion based on no research that he has done other than to read Google, like another of Buggs Raplin's denier "authorities", Dr. Ivar Giaever, than Dr. Ahmed should be prepared to be exposed as a gasbag spewing ignorance, despite his PhD. So I think at this point Dr. Ahmed should be challenged to show us if he has done actual, original research on global warming, where it was published, how it disproves prevailing scientific opinion and what was its reception after his work was tested for its reliability and accuracy by open-minded peers. Then we can begin to draw a conclusion on if we should be impressed by his bona fides or not. Understood, Buggs?"

Dr. Ahmed did not respond, which was his privilege, but certainly it would seem to indicate that he had nothing to say in his defense that he had studied global warming, had generated data on it and was willing to present it for peer review. Given that he took that position, as I said at the time, he may hold and express any opinion he wants on global warming, but it is no more or less valid an opinion than the opinion of the kid who delivers your pizzas. Dr. Ahmed is, indeed, Dr. Ivar Giaever redux in your fantasy realm of global warming. Got that Buggs?

Buggs Raplin

We disagree. A full page story in Newsweek is a major story. The Time magazine story was more than one page, but in your dishonesty, you didn't mention that. Now where did those magazines get their information from? Scientists who were worried we might be entering another ice age. Dr. Ahmed was a professor, not a researcher. He was paid to teach not to research. He has a doctorate in climatology, and has come to the conclusion that humans do not cause climate change. I should add that one does not need to have a doctorate in climatology to conclude human-caused climate change is a hoax. Common sense, and an understanding of the history of this planet will do that.

oldhomey

I am SO sorry that we disagree, Buggs, but, since I forced you to respond here, let me now demonstrate how you are lying and continuing to shilly shally with the truth on this subject. For arguments sake, we will say that a single page story in the science section of Newsweek and Time are MAJOR stories. That would mean that each of those magazines probably carried 15 or more MAJOR stories in the issues which we are debating, some of the considerably more MAJOR than just a single page. But I will give that to you, for argument's sake, and I will bow to you that the TIME magazine story on global cooling was more than one page, though I don't know that. The TIME historical site charges money to see it in its entirety, and I am not spending money on this. Still, it was not a cover story, just a story in its regular weekly science section, so I doubt that it even covered two full pages.

More to the point. You continually tell us, after hiding in the weeds after being caught in the lie, that mainstream media was inundated with huge scare stories throughout the 1970s that the world was facing an oncoming global cooling crisis. That simply was not so, but you have continually accused TIME and Newsweek of being typical of the mass media perpetrators, running multiple cover stories on the global cooling crisis. In fact, global cooling was not a major item of coverage in the media in the 1970s and neither TIME or Newsweek magazine ever ran a cover story on it. In fact, we are talking about the only two articles printed by either magazine on the subject in the 1970s. It is important to get this on the record for you,
Buggs, so that others see how you lie and misrepresent the truth to support your oddball theories.

As for Dr. Ahmed, who I am sure is otherwise a very smart, capable and decent man, I am glad to see that you are now admitting that he is not a researcher, so he could not have done research on global warming during his long, distinguished teaching career at UW-L. And I am glad to see that you admit that he is a geographer, but I am puzzled. You say he has a PhD in climatology, though I am pretty sure it is in geography. Of course there is overlap in the two fields of study, but what is he? A climatologist or a geographer? Either way, he does not and did not do research in climatology, so you can trundle him out, as you do with Dr. Ivar Giaever, as great authorities who back your global warming denial stance, but neither has done any sort of scientific work that should give them any serious credence to make judgement on the work of those who do. I will take my facts from the experts, not the agenda-driven amateurs such as yourself and Drs. Ahmed and Giaever, thank you very much.

Buggs Raplin

See above comment. Ahmed has a doctorate in climatology, not geography. Again, borrowing a Dylan line, 'you don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.'. Same with the hoax.

oldhomey

Well, Buggs, this is straight off the UW-L website for its geography department faculty, listing the Good Dr. Rafique Ahmed as emeritus professor: "Dr. Rafique Ahmed - Emeritus
Ph.D. in Geography
Ohio State University

Now that we have established his bonafides as a PhD in geography, I would hope you would no longer ignore the fact that he also, by your own admission, did NOT do research in climatology, just as your ace-in-the-hole authority, Dr. Ivar Giaever, not only did not do research in climatology, he admits to not being interested in it. These are your go-to authorities who knock down the work of thousands of actual climate scientists? Ahmed, Giaever, television happy talk weatherman John Coleman and comedian George Carlin who, I think, once played the role of the hippie dippie weatherman in his stand up routines. That is an astonishing line up. Buggs.

Buggs Raplin

Your welcome

Buggs Raplin

Dr. Ahmed told me his doctorate was in climatology. Perhaps UW-L is wrong in saying it was geography, or perhaps I misunderstood. I think the former.

Buggs Raplin

Time and Newsweek had major stories in the 1970's on the possibility of another ice age. Those stories were based on information from scientists. Now, scientists are saying we should fear a hot planet. The lesson here that is that science changes its verdicts. As to the latter hot planet claim, we know that scientists have been driven by politics to omit or obfuscate data that doesn't support their theory. And that's all it is-an unproven theory with no evidence to support it. Dr. Ahmed has a doctorate in climatology. He is an honered and distinguished professor recently retired, who does not believe humans have the ability to change the climate, just as Nobel prize winner Ivar Giaever does. You may equate their viewpoints to the kid who delivers pizzas, but in so doing you ridicule yourself.

Cassandra

Centuries old beliefs declared that the sun revolved around the earth. New information was uncovered and the science adapted. Chippy bases his vast knowledge of climate science on a 40 year old column in a pop news magazine.

Buggs Raplin

With only 5,000 people showing up in DC, the science march was a bust, but it will not be portrayed as such by the fake news mainstream media.

Cassandra

Denying the facts once again, eh Chippy?

Buggs Raplin

Cassie, is it a fact you consumed two whole pecan pies last night?

Cassandra

Each of your attempts at fat shaming only serves to underscore exactly what type of person you are, Chippy. Pathetic.

oldhomey

Well, I am SO GLAD that you were in DC to give us the official crowd estimate, Buggs, but no official estimates were made, as the police in DC do not do that. Remember Trump's lies about how large his inaugural crowd was? Scientists wanted to make a statement, and they did, as it now emerges, with marches in 600 cities around the world. The estimates I saw for DC were for 10,000 who attended. I don't know about the turn out in other cities, though I saw 40,000 people marched in Chicago. I haven't checked the paper in Milwaukee yet, but I suppose it would just be a big fat lie, anyway, because that would be mainstream media, right Buggs?

Buggs Raplin

MSN reported 5,000 in DC.

oldhomey

And Donald Trump reported that the biggest inaugural audience in history was at his inauguration in January. His estimation for Washington DC was decidedly wrong. And did he have people celebrating his inauguration in 600 cities around the world on inauguration day?

Buggs Raplin

To oldhomey: I noted some lengthy comments from you followed only by "Report" so I didn't bother reading them. Of course, you'll now accuse me of going into hiding. It's one of your astroturf strategies.

Cassandra

Are you really so ignorant as to not understand that those comments are part of a thread and that the reply button above is the method by which you comment? I'm not buying it, since I've seen your comments buried deep in other threads.

Buggs Raplin

Oh, my God. This is BIG news. Hold the presses Tribune. About 5,000 'scientists' showed up for the march in Washington DC. (Gasp) 5,000. Wow!! Incredible numbers. Just incredible. They didn't have Madonna or Ashley Judd to spur them on, but, God almighty, 5,000 protesters. That must just scare the dickens out of Donald Trump vis a vis the 'very real' threat of global warming.

oldhomey


Well, Buggs, apparently there were big demonstrations in support of truth and scientific inquiry in 500 or so cities around the nation and world yesterday. Does 5,000 sound so small to you? There were thousands in NYC, too, and though I have not seen the estimates, robust crowds in other marches around the city and world. Trump is already trying to take the edge off his earlier pronouncements on the environment, though nobody takes him at his word on anything, anymore, so what difference does it make? The fact is, you have the world's most brilliant scientists who are astonished and pained at the politicization of science that the Trump era has ushered in, and the cheapening of the truth. He can say anything he wants and will, but when alarms so many brilliant and influential people, you had better believe he is going to get stung pretty bad in this affair.

Buggs Raplin

Science has been politicized by Obama, and the hoax of human-caused global warming. But, yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if Trump suddenly becomes a crusader for the hoax. He's not the same I person I voted for. Same with Obama. I voted for him and he turned into George W. Bush. Now Trump is turning into Obama on key issues.

MidwestAtheist

The local health systems didn't respond to the local crackpot's letter in the paper, spouting debunked claims about a nonexistent link between vaccines and autism?

Shhhhhhhhhhhhocking.

That's a bit like a flat earther writing a letter, then feeling vindicated when the local geologists don't reapond.

Why would they waste their time on an unsinkable rubber duck who is immune to logic and evidence?

Buggs Raplin

Jeremy, I remember your response to my opinion piece. It totally ignored the William Thompson situation at the CDC. As I state below, you can't obfuscate his guilt over what he and his colleagues did, or the fact that he believed what he and his colleagues did in deleting critical data was a crime. Autism was unknown 80 years ago, and now strike 1 in 65 kids. Tell me has 'science' any explanation?

Cassandra

Autism causes climate change. I'm sure I read that somewhere on the interwebs.

oldhomey

Because Buggs is smarmily pretending that he is SO eager to respond to my comments but cannot because there is only a "report" option below my comments, I am going to paste in a comment I am eager to have him respond to. Here it is:

"oldhomey Apr 20, 2017 10:33pm
Why don't you share with us the name of the former UW-L professor and his academic expertise so that we can decide for ourselves if he is a legitimate critic of global warming, Buggs? It seems a little strange that you would cite expertise without naming the person and that person's qualifications. So these were major Time and Newsweek stories, Buggs? Perhaps you could cite for us the dates that these major stories ran. Then we could check them out and see how major they were. For somebody who accuses somebody else of lying, you certainly play your "facts" and "evidence" so close to the vest that it seems suspiciously difficult to check it out. Could it be, Buggs, that YOU are the one who is lying?"

Buggs Raplin

I don't remember the professor's name. He had a doctorate in climatology. He'd been at UW-L for some 30 years in the Geography department, and was retired at the time he wrote a letter to the editor supporting my position on the fallacy of human-caused global warming. He called me, and came over to my house, and we had an interesting conversation. Sorry, I don't know the exact dates of the Time and Newsweek articles, but they were major stories in those publications, and your wanting to know the exact dates is kerfluffle, in that you don't deny the articles in the first place.

oldhomey

I remember the letter to the editor by this man, Buggs, and it was a laugher on the order of your much cited non-authority, Ivar Giaever. He was exposed at the time. You certainly prove your deceitfulness with this posting. The man came to your house, you had what you thought was a champion for your denier arguments, you claimed him to be a prominent climate expert, this was within the last year or so, and you now say you cannot recall his name and have no way of tracking it down? If you offered it up, I think you realize his "authority" would once again be exposed.

Buggs, you have intimated dozens of times that in the 1970s the mainstream media bombarded the public constantly with warnings of global cooling, and you say Time and Newsweek were big and constant purveyors of this theory. Now we get it down to just one article by each of the two news magazines. It isn't hard to track them down, just as it would not be hard for you to recall the retired UW-L global warming denier.

For Time, it was the June 24, 1974 issue, an article titled "Another Ice Age?". It was NOT a major cover story, it was simply a story in that week's science department. It was a report on research by SOME scientist (which is what the press regularly and legitimately does) who noted "the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades" but also noted that "Some scientists... think that the cooling trend may be only temporary."

As for the Newsweek article in question, it ran April 28, 1975, titled "The Cooling World". It was a single-page story in its Science section, not a major story at all. It was perhaps a bit more accepting of the cooling theory of some scientists than Time had been a year earlier, but it did note "what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery" and cited the NAS conclusion that "not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions." Thirty years later Newsweek re-visited the story as an example of how science in its methodology can lead scientists initially down wrong avenues of exploration, but the scientific method eventually explodes bad theories and science moves on. There was NEVER a Time or Newsweek cover story on global cooling, Buggs. You could look it up, but of course you will not, because it will explode your own erroneous theories. And even when SOME scientists were looking at global cooling possibilities in the 1970s, the overwhelming amount of scientific research back then already was tracing global warming.

On October 23, 2006, Newsweek issued a correction, over 31 years after the original article, stating that it had been "so spectacularly wrong about the near-term future" (though editor Jerry Adler claimed that 'the story wasn't "wrong" in the journalistic sense of "inaccurate."').[41]

Buggs Raplin

The professor I spoke to was Rafique Ahmed. He was honored for his service of 31 years to the university in January 2016. Search the internet, and there's a big picture of him with Joe Gow. I would call a single page story in Newsweek a major story. Newsweek's revision 30 years later is just a cover-up. There was also a major story in Time Magazine, which you did not analyze.

oldhomey

Well, Buggs, of course you would call a one page story in Time or Newsweek a major story. I am sure anybody working at one of those publications would say it is a very routine story. And, since you want to dispute me on this, tell us why you for years insisted that Time and Newsweek were for years in the 1970s running repeated cover stories playing up global cooling? They ran two stories about global cooling in the 1970s, neither one a cover story. Will you for once agree that you have misspoke or were misled or something that would indicate that you are retracting your position on what the media did with global cooling in the 1970s? No, you won't, I suspect.

Isn't it interesting that, when pushed, you all of a sudden can recall the name of the mysterious but prominent UW-L physicist who champions your cause? And you seem to want to drape him in scientific honor because he was photographed upon his retirement standing next to that academician you have spent SO MUCH time on these posts honoring and praising, Joe Gow. Whatever port in the storm that you can find, eh, Buggs? I may have more to say about this.

oldhomey

So let's get back to Dr. Rafique, Buggs. In accusing me of lying in an earlier post of yours on this very same string, you said: "I'm acquainted with a former long time professor at UW-L with a doctorate in climatology who says it's a hoax."

I Googled Dr. Ahmed and found he is NOT a climatologist, but has his doctorate in geography, of which he was a professor. Were you lying in this instance, Buggs, or was it just a mistake?

Back to Dr. Ahmed. I also Googled his letter to the editor published in September, 2015 on this site, backing up your global warming denier position. He let it be known that he was a PhD scientist, and he then took a position that seemed to have been cut and pasted from a denier site, like that of the Koch brother's Heartland Institute.

Several people responded on here as I did, asking him to state his area of scientific expertise and whether he had ever studied climate change as a scientist. To refresh your memory, I will cut and paste exactly what I said:

"If Dr. Ahmed has done research and has produced evidence that shows that there is no human causation to current global warming trends, he should produce that evidence to his scientific peers for review. That is how science works, no ifs, ands or buts. But if Dr. Ahmed is using his academic credentials merely to posit a crackpot opinion based on no research that he has done other than to read Google, like another of Buggs Raplin's denier "authorities", Dr. Ivar Giaever, than Dr. Ahmed should be prepared to be exposed as a gasbag spewing ignorance, despite his PhD. So I think at this point Dr. Ahmed should be challenged to show us if he has done actual, original research on global warming, where it was published, how it disproves prevailing scientific opinion and what was its reception after his work was tested for its reliability and accuracy by open-minded peers. Then we can begin to draw a conclusion on if we should be impressed by his bona fides or not. Understood, Buggs?"

Dr. Ahmed did not respond, which was his privilege, but certainly it would seem to indicate that he had nothing to say in his defense that he had studied global warming, had generated data on it and was willing to present it for peer review. Given that he took that position, as I said at the time, he may hold and express any opinion he wants on global warming, but it is no more or less valid an opinion than the opinion of the kid who delivers your pizzas. Dr. Ahmed is, indeed, Dr. Ivar Giaever redux in your fantasy realm of global warming. Got that Buggs?

Cassandra

Here is a link to Newsweeks 40th anniversary follow-up to the story. The author of the original piece basically retracted the findings when new information became available.
http://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-rewind-debunking-global-cooling-252326

His response to today's climate change deniers using his article as ammunition in their astroturf campaign can be found here: https://www.insidescience.org/news/my-1975-cooling-world-story-doesnt-make-todays-climate-scientists-wrong

Cassandra

Of course, Chippy the conspiracy theorist claims the Time refutation of its earlier reporting is a "cover up." Of course he does. Everything that doesn't align with his crazy world view is a cover up or a conspiracy cooked up by the "fake news" and the scientists and liberals who are out to get him. Wow. Somebody should feed him his meds.

Buggs Raplin

One of the few programs I watch on TV is "Jeopardy." I always clap when Alex Trebek is introduced. What a national treasure is Mr. Trebek. The program is sponsored, in part, by Big Pharma advertising their latest drugs, which, of course, have been approved by the FDA. The interesting thing is that there are also ads for victims of other drugs that were advertised on "Jeopardy" in the past, and found to be defective. These defective drugs, like Nexium, were also approved by the FDA. By now, most people paying attention, realize that when people in the FDA leave their jobs, they take new ones in the corporations they were once supervising. So it was in the criminal Centers for Disease Control and the MMR vaccine's link to autism. William Thompson brought his concerns about the fraudulent study he and his colleagues were to publish in "Pediatrics, the one where they deleted data showing a link between the MMR vaccine and autism to Julie Gerberding, the head of the CDC at the time. She did nothing. About five years later, Julie Gerberding left the CDC for a job with Merck, the maker of the MMR vaccine. Hey, folks, get this. You cannot trust the federal government on anything. The health of the people is secondary to corporate profits. It doesn't matter one bit to the elite that 1 in every 65 kids becomes autistic. What matters is that Merck not be blamed for it, and the fake news media is hard at work to make sure that doesn't happen.-Chip DeNure

oldhomey

More classic Buggs. He relates a phony baloney charge against an individual or entity, many on here discredit it, he goes into hiding, caught in his lie, then he resurrects the same phony baloney a few days or weeks later, as though he is offering up hot new information. In this case it is the VERY tired old charge against the CDC and the supposed scandal involving researcher William Thompson. Buggs uses it in his endless rant about autism and his desire to ban childhood vaccines, which have saved more lives and assured the healthy childhood of billions of children who would have been exposed to fatal and crippling diseases without them.

The crux of Buggs' case is an anomaly in testing results on MMR vaccines that researcher William Thompson. Thompson said that results in CDC research on MMR went unreported, partially due to Thompson himself, that showed that African American toddler males receiving the MMR vaccine had a heightened chance of becoming autistic. The results of subsequent investigation discredited Thompson's concern, that there was no cause for concern. Thompson himself, in a quote from him that I have reproduced dozens of times but which Buggs refuses to acknowledge or deal with, made certain that Thompson is a fervent believer in the safety and blessings of childhood vaccines: "I want to be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue to save countless lives. I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines prevent serious diseases, and the risks associated with their administration are vastly outweighed by their individual and societal benefits."


In the subsequent investigation of Thompson's allegation, it emerged from the data used in the study that a number of the pre-school African-American males in the study were kids with autism enrolled in special pre-school education classes, thus artificially skewing the numbers of autistic children in the pre-school African-American male cohort in the study. False alarm. And, on the face of it, why would African-American male children be more prone to this outcome than African-American female children or, for that matter, children of any race? To hold on to this belief of yours, Buggs, is somewhat akin to trying to tell us blacks are just better dancers or have more rhythm than other races. Whose fake news is hard at work here?

RemoteEmployee

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Buggs Raplin

10-4

Buggs Raplin

Oh, give me a break. You cannot obfuscate Thompson's guilt over what he and his colleagues did, or the fact that he thought what he and his colleagues did was criminal-literally tossing significant data into a garbage can. You'd think that if it was an anomaly, the CDC would have fired Thompson for insubordination for not publicly going along with their false debunking, but he still works there. It's my understand the fraudulent study has been used to deny compensatory damages in the US government's vaccine court. Those damages would probably total a very, very huge amount of money to parents victimized by the MMR vaccine.

oldhomey

So now Thompson is guilty of a crime, but he is the hero of this episode? And you are criticizing the CDC for allowing him to speak out without firing him? It is SO impressive, Buggs, that it is your "understanding" that the fraudulent study has been used to deny compensatory damages. Do you have any "understandings" on any other subjects under the sun that we should all be aware of because of your apparent vast storage of knowledge? I would prefer, however, that you show some evidence rather than understanding in this case, perhaps producing the anguished cases of parents denied compensation because of this research. And, Buggs, how do you square the idea that only black male preschoolers three and under suffer elevated incidence of autism after receiving the mumps, measles and rubella MMR vaccine? Are they so genetically different from black female preschoolers or preschoolers of any other race and ethnicity that only they would suffer this side effect? Or was it because of the children studied in this instance the black males three years old and younger were over-represented because so many of them were attending an Atlanta pre-school for autistic preschool boys? Please explain this to us Buggs.

RemoteEmployee

This is kind of pitiful.

Buggs Raplin

The CDC vaccine division is a cesspool of corruption-RFK Jr.

oldhomey

Do you vote for politicians who are endorsed by prominent people and movie stars, Buggs? How in tarnation's name would RFK Jr.'s opinion on this matter? Are we all supposed to stand up, salute and accept what he says as received wisdom?

ChatterCat2

Science works

With science, we have made advances in medicine, engineering , communications, transportation etc. etc. to make common place things that would been miracles to our ancestors. Science has given us answers to questions our ancestors couldn't have dreamed of. Science will never have all the answers. Science is never completely satisfied with the answers it gets, testing and retesting the answers and every answer leads to more questions.

Buggs Raplin

The problem these days is that 'science' has become a slave to politics, and the corporations control politics. For example, 15 or so countries including Russia have banned GMO crops as a danger to the health of their people, but not here in the US. Vaccines have been presented to the public as being totally safe, when they're not. And the 'science' promoting human-caused global warming has become a joke with omitted data, manipulated data, and outright deception by its proponent 'scientists'.

oldhomey

Well, for once I can agree with you, Buggs. There are 15 or so nations that have banned GMO crops because of politics, not because of scientific evidence, as there is no credible evidence that GMO crops are at all harmful. It is a pity, as we have exploding populations and shrinking availability of croplands because of global warming and human population spread. GMO crops would dramatically raise the yields of crops and alleviate food shortages that are coming. Let's join hands on this one, Buggs and campaign against putting politics in front of good sense. What do you say? I think I know what you will say. Perhaps some day a vaccine will be developed to eradicate the sort of delusional thinking that you suffer from.

Buggs Raplin

You insult everyone's intelligence with this comment. Even supporters of human-caused global warming.

oldhomey

Geez, Buggs, the Tribune seems to want to protect you by only putting a "Report" option after your comments. I simply don't know how to comment on your comment, as a result. But, perhaps, I could suggest that you review what I said in my 4:45pm post, and those things that you think you could dispute, lay out your facts and sources and dispute them. I know I played it a little tongue in cheek, but unlike you, I didn't lie or exaggerate. If you want to prove me wrong, do so. Cick on +Add Reply under my 4:45pm post, state your case, post it, and I can almost guarantee that it will appear right under this comment by me. Go ahead, Buggs. Prove me wrong.

kingman10

oldhomey I usually applaud your opinion and thorough incites, but in this case of GMO (God move over) crops in our food supply I do disagree. Genetic engineering of crossing different species dna that would never happen i nature is a path to disaster. The claim by Monsato and other big food conglomerates that it is necessary to feed a growing population is not true, and it has been shown to be harmful to health. It is an attempt by these corporations to monopolize the food seed industry. In most cases these GMO seeds like soybean crop, no harvested soybeans can be used for next years crop, for they will no germinate. Every year new patented seeds must be purchased from these big corporations. And the claim that they need less pesticides or herbicides is simply not true, as a matter of fact more are used because insects and weeds become resistant to these artificial chemicals and therefor more are needed. Careful use of the soil, growing food organically in a sustainable way has proven to be more productive than the common commercial farming methods. We are constantly ingesting small amounts of these pesticides and herbicides in our foods, and over time we have seen an increase rates in everything from cancer, to obesity, food allergies, diabetes and many other diseases. I have read much on this subject, and have come to the conclusion that natural, organic food is what we are meant to eat. Many scientists have also come to this conclusion, those not affiliated with Monsanto or big ag corporations.

kingman10

there really is no wold wide scientific consensus on the safety of Gmo crops. Here is an article from 300 scientific researchers who warn of the harmful effects of GMO's. https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1 Its from a european group of researchers who bring up valid questions of safety.

kingman10

https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1 Here is an article written by a group of 300 scientific researchers questioning the safety and the methods used in the testing of GMO's. There really is no scientific consensus world wide by researchers on this subject. That alone is reason enough to stay away from these products till they can absolutely prove the are safe to eat.

oldhomey

Sorry, kingman, but I did not see your comments before. For now you and I will have to agree to disagree on GMO. I read a lot, too, and I have never read anything very convincing about the "proof" of GMO dangers. I certainly, however, subscribe to the idea of constant vigilance on all things related to the food and medicinal drugs that we ingest -- including, Buggs, even vaccines. DDT, Alar, Thalidomide and many other number of under-investigated products have slipped through into the food and drug chain catastrophic consequences. But those products and the bad they did were the foundation of the safeguards we have erected through the government, and they are working. That is why Donald Trump, the Koch brothers and many in corporate America are trying to weaken and do away with the FDA, the EPA and other safe-guarding agencies. That is my main concern these days, but I will read more on GMO to see if I have been blind to something that I should not be blind to. It wouldn't be the first time, believe me.

kingman10

there was only a report tag on your 4:45 response oldhomey, but alas I found a way to respond, unlike others who can't figure that out. As far as GMO's are concerned, yes we can agree to disagree. All I ask is that these GMO foods be labeled in the store so that the consumer can make up their own mind what they want to put into their bodies. But of course big food businesses don't want that to happen, they want to keep everyone in the dark. And there is always a movement to lessen the standards of what constitutes "organic" and you guessed it, Monsato and others are behind it. What you ingest is a personnal choice, so I would like to keep the choices out there for consumers to ultimately decide. Unlike climate change, which does have the backing of the world wide climatologists, the jury is still out on GMOs. The government is dependent too much on corporations to do the research, the same corporations that stand to benefit from GMOs. We really need independent, verifiable, peer reviewed research to take place, which hasn't happened yet.

kingman10

edit that to your april 25 response old homey. Oh and way to take down buggs on his supposed friend who really was not a climatologist. Old buggs got caught there with his pants down.

superman

The interesting thing about facts is that you don't have to believe them to be true. Don't believe in human made climate change, no problem! The Earth will just keep getting warmer no matter what you think. Here's to someday down the road when Wisconsin is the next Florida! Cheers.

Buggs Raplin

Top Secret Memo
From: oldhomey
To: La Crosse Tribune

I very much appreciate it when you just list 'Report' after my comments. I was hoping you could do it all the time.

oldhomey

Gosh, Buggs' humor is just slashing and devastating. It STILL won't erase the fact that he uses this lame excuse to hide every time his lies are exposed.

Buggs Raplin

Accuse your opponent of hiding is a prime astroturf technique to fool the gullible.

oldhomey

Are you telling me and the world that you do NOT hide after I have proven you wrong or lying, Buggs? Then why don't you prove ME wrong? And, since I really, truly am pretty much unaware of what astroturfing techniques are, could you provide me with a good link explaining it, particularly now one that shows accusing an opponent of hiding is a prime technique?

Clarification

This article is Disneyland for certain self-inflating posters, isnt it?

Buggs Raplin

Forgive me for I have sinned against the new religion.

Cassandra

Facts simply don't matter to people like Chippy and the Hoaxer. Simply. Don't. Matter.

Buggs Raplin

Cassie, Melo and I are so worried about your obesity, we're considering an intervention.

Cassandra

And you are so void of legitimate arguments and unable to refute the truth that you have to stoop to attempts at fat shaming. You are so pathetic and posts like this only make you look like a fool in the public eye. I pity you.

Buggs Raplin

Mike, in his semi-deification of 'science' does acknowledge it's not perfect. There is no better example of its imperfection and criminality than the Centers or Disease Control. This is the US government agency that was guilty of horrors against the black population in its 'experiments' with syphilis-infected people in Alabama in the 1940's. Switch ahead some 65 years or so, and we find the scientists at the CDC engaged in further criminal activity. A 2002 study by the CDC found a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. The authors of that study then criminally deleted data from the study obscuring the link. The study was then published in the journal "Pediatrics" in 2004 leading parents and doctors to believe the MMR vaccine was safe. One of the authors of that study, William Thompson, was recorded in a phone conversation in 2014 acknowledging what he and his colleagues had done. His guilt is obvious in that conversation , and cannot be obfuscated by the corrupt mainstream media, or blogger defendants of the CDC in subservience to Big Pharma. This is a guilty man, who realized that when he and his colleagues literally dumped the data showing the link between the MMR vaccine and autism into a garbage can, they were doing something illegal. How many children have become autistic from the MMR vaccine since 2004? How many? Autism was unknown 80 years ago. Now it strikes 1 in every 65 children, and the prevalence is growing. What has 'science' offered regarding this epidemic? Nothing. Absolutely nothing, as far as I can tell. I urge everyone to purchase or attempt to see the documentary, "Vaxxed." I lent it to a friend, whose husband was skeptical. They both came away horrified about what they'd seen. The fake news mainstream media has essentially covered up the William Thompson situation at the CDC. He still works there, by the way. Thompson did save the data that his colleagues tossed in the garbage can showing the link between the MMR vaccine and autism. It's in the hands of Rep. Bill Posey of Florida who's trying to launch an investigation. A couple years ago, I e-mailed Ron Kind to ask his support of Rep. Posey, and requested a response from Kind. None has been forthcoming. As a state senate candidate last year, I made it publicly known on a number of occasions that the MMR vaccine causes autism in some children. That included a guest column in the Tribune. No one at Mayo or Gundersen criticized me in that contention.-Chip DeNure

Buggs Raplin

Actual conspiracies are the dominant feature of world history. One can conclude-based on the evidence- that an actual conspiracy took place. The CIA developed the term 'conspiracy theory' in the 1960's to ridicule authors and researchers bringing forth evidence that JFK was killed in a conspiracy. For example, the Altgens photo shows Oswald standing in the entrance to the school book depository as the first shots were fired at the president. His face is blurred, but he's identifiable by the shirt he's wearing-the same one he's wearing when arrested in the movie theater. Incidentally, Will Fritz, the Dallas homicide detective later reported that Oswald told him that's exactly where he was-in the entrance way. The term conspiracy theory caught on, and the media has used it ever since to cover up actual conspiracies that were committed by elite forces to further the elite agenda. The general public has been brainwashed by the term to automatically dismiss an actual conspiracy when the word 'theory' is attached. It's a mind control technique for the less discriminating thinker. And, of course, those advocating an actual conspiracy based on the evidence, are told to adjust their tin foil hats, get back on their meds, and seek psychiatric care. I get it all the time, and usually encourage my adversaries to come up with something new in their ridicule. One should always remember that when truth conflicts conventional thinking, most people prefer the latter. It's less upsetting to their worldview.

oldhomey

So Buggs, since conspiracies are THE dominant feature of world history, perhaps you could lay out a time line for us with ten or so of the most dominant, history shaping human events and how each was a part of a conspiracy. The invention of language (and later the invention of writing)? The invention of agriculture and irrigation? The formation of city-states? The establishment of globe-girdling trade routes that imported and exported technological and cultural change? The invention of higher mathematics? The discovery that Earth is but a small planet revolving around the sun in a vast universe? The invention of the printing press? The evolution of public health, clean water, sewage removal and the germ theory? Show us how conspiracies played important roles in these seminal moments in human history, Buggs.

" . . . less discriminatory thinkers . . . " My, my. If all these slam-dunk proof photos of the JFK assassination cover-up are so readily available, Buggs, I would think they would be assembled into a supermarket photo album sort of book that would have been a hot seller for the last 55 years. I expect this has not happened because there are no such convincing photos in existence. Your crude conspiracy theories like the JFK ones, Buggs, leave you wide open to ridicule because you are a salacious huckster of the sort that people usually hold up to justifiable ridicule, just like the hucksters who try to sell male reproductive organ enlargement nostrums.

Buggs Raplin

Historical conspiracies? Well, here are some: the assassination of Julius Caesar; the crucifixion of Jesus Christ; the American revolution; the coup of Bonaparte to gain power; the assassination of Abraham Lincoln; US entrance into the Spanish American War; The Russian revolution; the Reichstag Fire; Pearl Harbor; Mao's Revolution; the Gulf of Tonkin; the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK; 9/11; the Iraq invasion. As to pictures of the JFK assassination, Robert Groden has assembled many in his book, " The Killing of a President." The Zapruder film, of course, shows the fatal bullet blowing off part of JFK's head coming from the grassy knoll area. Again, Oswald is photographed outside the book depository as the assassins began firing. It's in the Altgen's photo.

oldhomey

Oh, when you said "Actual conspiracies are the dominant feature of world history", you meant "historical" conspiracies are the dominant feature of world history. Do they dominate the social organization of mankind, Buggs, or were other, broader, seemingly mundane developments such as those I mentioned more dominant, with political conspiracies being important sideshows? Did the assassination of Julius Caesar, the coup of Bonaparte, the Lincoln, JFK, RFK, MLK assassinations, the U.S. entrance into the Spanish American War, the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the Iraq invasion knock the course and progress of human history completely off the line in which it had been traveling prior to those events occurring? Could you perhaps show how any of of them did? Were the American Revolution, the Russian Revolution and Mao's Revolution conspiracies, or were they popular uprisings planned, for obvious reasons, in secret? As horrible and as criminal as they were, the Reichstag fire, Pearl Harbor and 9-11 certainly were the results of conspiratorial planning, but did they have more impact on human history than the invention of agriculture or the printing press or the discovery of the germ theory? I am no historian, Buggs, but I find your historical analysis to be as flimsy as every other argument you make.

oldhomey

I just wanted to point out, Buggs, that though there was only a "Report" option after my last comment, here I am putting a response in simply by clicking on "+Add Reply" after your 5:08pm comment. I invite you to reply to my response. If you don't, you are clearly indicating that you feel defeated, that you have nothing worthwhile to say in response. And that is why I expect to see no response from you.

MelloRedBuggVet2Lax

The minute I saw the (1) comment, I knew what to expect and from whom. Blah, blah, blah, conspiracy, blah, blah, coverup, blah blah Blah, blah, blah, conspiracy, blah, blah, coverup, blah blah Blah, blah, blah, conspiracy, blah, blah, coverup, blah blah Blah, blah, blah, conspiracy, blah, blah, coverup, blah blah.

Buggs Raplin

In the case of human-caused global warming, science has become a religion where 'faith' in scientists is demanded. That faith is unwarranted because many of the scientists stating humans have the ability to change the climate have been found to manipulate or omit data that didn't support their 'theory'. And that's all it is-a theory unsupported by any..I repeat any evidence. Mike makes reference to the infamous 97%, which has been used by climate change proponents to try to sell their theory. It simply isn't true. 97% of scientists do not believe humans are a causal factor in climate change. Yes, some do, and other scientists simply go along with the notion to avoid being ostracized by their peers or see career advancement go down the tube. The earth has experienced numerous significant climate changes-the 5 ice ages, the medieval warm period, the mini ice age that followed, and subsequent periods of warming and cooling. In the 1970's scientists were warning of the possibility of another ice age as evidenced by major stories in Newsweek and Time. Most of our significant climate changes occurred before industrialization, the use of fossil fuels, and the Koch brothers. One of the sad aspects of this new religion is that for many of its proponents, if you're a non-believer in this hoax, then you're also against environmental regulations. In my case, as an acknowledged heretic, that is not true. I'm for clean air, and clean water, but (again) there is no evidence humans have the ability to change the climate. Don't scientists need evidence? Isn't science based on evidence? No, what you've got is the opinion of some scientists. Just opinion. Sort of like when most scientists were telling us the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth.-Chip DeNure aka Buggs Raplin

PhysicsIsFun

Get a life!

random annoying bozo

ahhhh, the old 'get a life' comeback, usually uttered by someone who has no rebuttal, or facts to counter someone else.....when i come to think of it, the whole global cooling/global warming/climate change/extreme weather, or whatever it may be called in the future is completely devoid of facts, but instead is based on computer modeling, which ignores how the sun influences earth, and uses 'man made facts' created by researchers who doctor results, and just make up data, to make sure the research money comes in, and they have a comfy income.

PhysicsIsFun

How about debating with a couple of know nothing cranks is a waste of time. Facts, logic, the scientific process have no effect on you. You are like a broken record continually playing the same nonsense. It is nauseating.

Buggs Raplin

Ivar Giaever and I went trout fishing yesterday. He's a Nobel winner in PHYSICS. He told me that human-caused global warming/climate change is a hoax. I bowed to his wisdom. We caught numerous trout, and fried them up in butter. My God. I haven't eaten so well in years. Cheers.

oldhomey

Ah. Here we have some more vintage Buggs Raplin. He puts out his lies and his bad information, and when it is immediately discredited, he goes into hiding, unable to show his face again because he has nothing credible to say. Then, after a week or two, he comes out and re-states the same, discredited garbage.

I will not go into all of it here, but these two instances should suffice. Take notice, bozo, since you are bozo enough to drink in Buggs' fantasies as your own:

1. Buggs assures us: "97% of scientists do not believe humans are a causal factor in climate change. Yes, some do, and other scientists simply go along with the notion to avoid being ostracized by their peers or see career advancement go down the tube." It is not not 97 percent of all scientists, Buggs, it is 97 percent of all climate scientists believe humans are a causal factor. I imagine, since most scientists believe in the scientific method, they would trust the conclusions of 97 percent of the climate scientists whose research (which is available to you but which you never touch, Buggs) who came to this conclusion. Tell me about your own "scientific" conclusion that a large percent of climate scientists simply go along with the notion to avoid being ostracized and crippling their careers? In a field in which honesty and integrity is so basic to its work, how in hell's bells name could such a gigantic fear game be conducted without being exposed, Buggs? I don't expect an answer from you, because I know you don't have one that could be at all credible.

2. Buggs tells us "In the 1970's scientists were warning of the possibility of another ice age as evidenced by major stories in Newsweek and Time." Good God Almighty, Buggs, when will you lay this old canard to rest? I have several times cited chapter and verse the Time and Newsweek articles that you refer to. They were not gigantic articles, they were not cover stories. They were small, routine articles, one each, from Time and Newsweek, that did not come on like gangbusters warning of coming ice ages, but reported on research being done that indicated we might be heading to a cooler climates. These were small, isolated research projects, the magazines reported on them, the scientific method kicked in, the reality came to surface, those theories soon hit the scrap heap. But for you to crow that the press in the 1970s was full of daily stories about climate cooling is simply a big, fat lie. It never happened. A. Big. Fat. Lie.

Your modus operandi is showing Buggs. It stinks. Find a different game to play. You, too, bozo.

Buggs Raplin

oldhomey is playing games with the 97% of scientists thing. Well, to clarify 97% of all climate scientists do not believe in the hoax. I'm acquainted with a former long time professor at UW-L with a doctorate in climatology who says it's a hoax. The 97% claim is akin to WMD in Iraq. It's a lie. And, no, the stories in Time and Newsweek were major stories warning of the possibility of another ice age. To all others reading this: oldhomey is a liar, and all you get from him are lies and disinformation. If you want to believe his nonsense, so be it. As I state elsewhere, many people will take conventional wisdom over truth because it's less upsetting psychologically.

kingman10

97% claim is akin to WMD in Iraq!! What the heck does that have to do with anything. The WMD bull came from politicians, not scientists. Equating the honesty of scientist with that of politicians is ridiculous. A true scientist like Mr Lawson (the guy who wrote this article) have impeccable credentials of honesty and integrity compared to politicians who have neither. I wonder where and when all these world climate scientists got together to conjure up this global warming hoax. I remember the talk years ago of a possible coming ice age. It was not headline news nor did it have the backing of most of the scientist of the day. It was a few articles and one or two books printed to make a few bucks. That talk of ice age disappeared as quickly as it came in the scientific community. The same cannot be said of human caused global warming because it has merit, the scientific community believes it, the evidence is over whelming, and it continues to get worse year after year.

oldhomey

Why don't you share with us the name of the former UW-L professor and his academic expertise so that we can decide for ourselves if he is a legitimate critic of global warming, Buggs? It seems a little strange that you would cite expertise without naming the person and that person's qualifications. So these were major Time and Newsweek stories, Buggs? Perhaps you could cite for us the dates that these major stories ran. Then we could check them out and see how major they were. For somebody who accuses somebody else of lying, you certainly play your "facts" and "evidence" so close to the vest that it seems suspiciously difficult to check it out. Could it be, Buggs, that YOU are the one who is lying?

random annoying bozo

so homely, other than to chime in to criticize others, what factual data can you supply to the discussion? oh wait, I forgot, you just like to play the 'flap the fingers on the keyboard and not really say anything' game. that is your modus operandi isn't it?

oldhomey

Gosh, I guess I got my comeuppance from the brilliant bozo. Anybody who reads these posts will now, upon honest reflection, realize that I never offer any facts, I "just flap the fingers on the keyboard and not really say anything". It took a bozo to figure out my m.o. Next up, he will expose my b.o. and the frequency of my b.m.s, not to mention my low i.q. and propensity for the D.Q. I had better retire from my commentaries ASAP, as any opinions I might offer up in the future will be d.o.a. It that enough of not saying anything, bozo?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thanks for reading. Subscribe or log in to continue.