Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I actually think I have seen him post peer-reviewed articles.
He uses them in service of a point that they don't actually prove, or doesn't actually understand what they say well enough to realize they actually disprove what he believes.
This is what usually happens when deniers use legitimate sources.
The joy of arguing with hawkeye is that he always attaches the same 'the cult of AGW will never understand this' rant to every single post, just to make sure you're even more annoyed than you would be if he just posted weak arguments and bad references.
Cesit is on an "ethics committee". I personally found those on "ethics committees" to be non-science oriented pests, usually with some bullcrap degree is sociology or some other waste. "Ethics committees" are usually barriers to science, as they place odd, unusual demands on valid, scientific study.
He/She has no advanced scientific degrees, no training in science, no publications, has never edited papers for the literature. Sadly, he/she is perpetrating a fraud by suggesting any formal training, as he has none.
Yet he claims to be an expert in science.
This is how this scam is perpetuted- pseudoscience propagated by pseudoscientists.
So what are Ceist's credentials ? ZERO, NADA, NOTHING. This is what we call the "Dunning-Kruger Effect" in which those with the least credentials and training claim false superlative expertise.
I personally have no peer reviewed articles and have done no study on climatology a can only go by what the scientists are claiming ,which makes me curious as to what data people like Hawkeye are using to refute the findings of such institutions like NASA=http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ and NOAA=https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring...al-warming.php
Must be pretty good data if on the basis of it he can proclaim all the scientists wrong.
You can hate nuclear power all you like, but every other source of electricity kills more people than nuclear.
That is currently. But the stuff will kill your great great grand kids if not handled correctly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
You're welcome to share your story though. Your saying that a lot of your family members died from radiation exposure from nuclear plants? Sorry to hear it. Where and when did it happen. Family from near Chernobyl?
My grandpa collected bugs day after A-bomb test in Nevada, died of pancreatic cancer, my uncle died of pancreatic cancer as well lived down wind, my dad lived downwind from A-boom tests died of leukemia. That stuff will kill you.
We haven't lost an N plant. Three mile island came close, but my brother went and stayed with his in-laws when Fukushima went, he lives outside of Tokyo.
Last edited by ContrarianEcon; 05-04-2016 at 09:23 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
