GeniusIsDisruptive

If you had any idea of the history of science and its countless failures, you would not have made such a statement. Science is the search for truth, and the truth is often elusive. Everyone forms his own opinion based on observations and inferences. It is absurd to pretend that humans can do so perfectly, always. "Heavier-than-air flight is impossible." - Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1895 "If we all worked on the assumption that what is thought to be true really is true, there would be little hope of advance." - Orville Wright

July 10 - Hence, the blind guy doesn't know with certainty the color of his hat. – Zapatos July 10 – Zapatos - Of course, that isn't what I said, is it? What is amusing is your inability to actually read what I write (you are now two for two). Did you come to this site because you ran out of local people to be rude to? Here is “RUDE”, Zapatos: __________________ July 10 – Manticore Your egotistical rant might make some kind of sense if you were right. July 11 – koti While at it, you could continue your progress by stoping projecting your insecurities on this forum to a point in which a group of 12 year olds could see them...not to mention a bunch of PHD's who you are trying to "disrupt" with your bulshit There are 14 year olds on this forum writing more coherent and valusble posts than you. July 11 – DrP No-one wants to hear your ignorant angry rants except your brainwashed mates. You come across really angry about stuff - probably because that is synonymous with the kind of fear and loathing bred by right wing propaganda in people that believe it. It's sad. July 11 – LordAntares - you're an average moron who read something on the New World Order or some other crackpot site and you think you're going to ''save christianity'' and ''disprove science''. I have not read a single intelligent thing by you. Perhaps you should learn some science. [GeniusIsDisruptive replies: Your hatefulness, condescension, and dishonesty are extremely reprehensible. Leftists such as you often are.] July 12 – koti - "What are you nine years old ?!" Moderator is right, I withdrew my comment. //////////////////////////// Rude comments directed at me are truncated. /////////

As YOU have been shown time and again, the "data" and the graphs and the arguments have been terribly skewed and biased and censored. No, they do NOT "look at the subject from different angles." Those "deniers" are ostracized, denied tenure, denied grants and promotions. That has been the case in "deniers" of Darwinian evolution, and it continues apace in this latest fraud. "Easily offended" is YOUR convenient rhetoric. I have been repeatedly misquoted, misconstrued, called ignorant, and lectured to interminably by such as you, always cock-sure of themselves and insistent on telling ME to tow the P.C. line. This isn't "debate." It is intolerance. It is rudeness. This group couldn't even solve a laughably simple riddle, and when I pointed out the lesson, the moral in that fact, the group went absolutely ballistic. NOBODY said, "Dang, that's a good one. You got us. We screwed up." Because in your world here, you groupies NEVER screw up. You're ALWAYS right, and you misquote and misconstrue to make it so. How many examples must I provide of your collective FAILURES to "bear witness to the truth"? How many!!! You misquote me. That's reprehensible. Collectively you are unkind, ungracious even when I show you your errors. You refute the truth again and again. Your friend "Manticore," ridiculed my forum name,"GeniusIsDisruptive," stating I am anything BUT a genius. For the record, I have not claimed to be, but that has also escaped Manticore." When I turned his pettiness on him, stating that according to HIS little game, this is NOT a "science" forum and he is NOT a "Man". Oh my, but Man(sic)ticore called THAT "childish." His attack was just clever. My identical turnabout on him, hoisting him with his own petard - "childish." Is this the "truth" all of you "bear witness to"? Tell me. Don't YOU lecture ME on skepticism or what is or is not "the scientific method." The subject of THIS THREAD is "When did you stop learning?" It's not any "obscure journal" and I have not cited one. I have not published in one and nowhere have I "claimed to be a scientist." But you enjoy making your inane pronouncements and attaching them to me, to make yourself look so very wise. And the crowd chose Barabbas the thief to be set free. A popularity contest, lost by the very One you cited so arrogantly, so injudiciously.

"So you're now assuming I am a Democrat" is what YOU said. THIS is what I said: He validates my point of the widespread condescension by the Left here. I say "Left." You say "Democrat." You understand how that makes you look, right? I didn't think so. It's always one way with you Leftists. YOU'RE smarter, more environmentally conscious, more genuinely moral and decent, more giving, ever so much more scientific, and smarter. Did I say smarter? Leftists from any country can be expected to pounce on Donald Trump, after he defeated Hillary Clinton in the election, despite all the best efforts of the Fake News Media. That's why your Leftist nature is abundantly clear. He validates my point of the widespread condescension by the Left here. I say "Leftist." Your Leftist friend says he's not a "Democrat." And that is supposed to make ME look..... You kind and gentle folks enjoy ganging up on one newcomer here who rejects your political correctness, and you attack relentlessly, giggling at your own cleverness at every step. How utterly "scientific" and "rational" of you. Really. The "extraordinary skills" are all yours. I'm just a simple nine year old. Ask your friend koti.

WAS it "acceptable behavior during Obama's presidency"? Acceptable to you? Please, stop the rhetorical nonsense. That's all it is and you know it. The CEO of a technology company in San Diego publicly threatened to assassinate President Trump. He was abruptly fired, and he apologized profusely. Too late. An art teacher at University of Alaska, Anchorage drew a painting of Trump decapitated, his head held by a nude homosexual, whose left leg was being hugged by Hillary. Lovely. Classy, much like, oh Piss Christ. A lecturer in Fresno State I believe hit a Trump supporter over the head with a heavy U-Bolt bike lock, which could have been fatal. A chubby girl lit the hair of a Trump supporter on fire. All in good fun, right? The infamous Democrat attempted to assassinate Republicans playing baseball. And when a New York congressman said "both sides need to reduce the rhetoric," Nancy Pelosi went crazy. She exclaimed, "How dare he say such a thing (as we should tone down our rhetoric). How dare he." So excuses are ALWAYS proffered for outrageous Democrat words and deeds. But Republicans, should they try anything hurtful or hateful, well that is a very different story. Shut them up, boycott the hell out of all of them. Snowflakes unite, gather your crayons and Play Doh. Let's go to a Safe Space.

LOOK, everyone! A civil response. God Bless you, DrP. It's so very rare around here for someone stepping a millimeter off the Politically Correct Path. Let me answer it and... have a conversation with DrP, my best friend around these parts. 1. NO, I am NOT "saying (I) just don't care if the rain forests totally go." YOU said that. You correctly followed up with the point that rain forests have "little to do with NASA." The bigger point is this: Leftists make these little jokes and cartoons and everybody on the Left nods their collective head, and snickers in perfect agreement. Yes, the "repugs" are SO STUPID and SO POLLUTING and SO UNCARING and SO GREEDY. But when one looks more carefully at the nonsense so eagerly and endlessly repeated, it falls apart like Hillary's and Obama's lies. 2. There were EIGHT POINTS! You addressed ONE of them, and even so, asked if I don't care if the rain forests totally go. Should Donald Trump suggest we do something toward their preservation, of course Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Haters would rise up in righteous indigation that we were "interfering" with a sovereign country. HOW DARE HE! they would scream. What about the other seven, which elicited so many knowing giggles from this gathering of scientists?

Why no, as a nine-year-old, according to koti, I have not the slightest idea of "without limit." So please, tell me, would you? "Science research" has included funding studies on why lesbians get drunk more often than normal women. "Science research" has included funding studies on how climate change is impacting malaria in South Africa. "Science research" has been lampooned for many years for squandering taxpayers' funds. Do you understand what "scarce resources" are? Or do you not consider them remotely scarce, but falling from government troughs like so much slop? A teaching moment, courtesy of Professor Walter Williams, of George Mason University: "Ninety percent of government spending is unconstitutional." A profound and enlightening commentary, for those who would learn. It is virtually impossible for a Democrat to comment on a conservative without making gratuitous references to our "ignorance" and "anti-science" mentality. So Arete makes a "left vs right" issue and says that doing so "displays considerable ignorance" without noting the irony of his smear. He validates my point of the widespread condescension by the Left here. Nor is there ever an apology made to me, even after I have been called a "nine year old."

Oh please. PLEASE! Challenge evolution, or "climate change (recently called global warming, but reformulated when warming paused for 17 years), and see how you are attacked by the Leftist elite. Challenge atheist pretensions and suffer their condescending wrath. There is no "constant retesting." Science has been deeply politicized, by the godless Left. When Darwinian evolution was on the wane, the Russian communists revived it as a great boon to their atheist state control. No less an authority than Stephen J. Gould said as much. "Atheism is an essential part of communism," said Lenin. (I won't bother to verify if this is his exact quote, but it is in perfect context.) Zounds! I have been outed by rangerx. He clearly knows that conservatives are ALL *anti-intellectual* ... and little else. Thank you, rangerx. I have learned SO MUCH from you in just your one sentence. Please join beecee on my Ignore List.

A cute drawing by iNow, with four thoroughly documented "scientific" steps. That does it. I'm convinced. Thanks for the "lesson." It was so factual and convincing that I will immediately add your name to my Ignore List. ~ciao swansont cannot be added to that list because he is so very privileged, as a *moderator,* shows an extreme bias in both his posts and his criticisms. But I will not reply again to any of his posts for the same reason I have beecee, and iNow and another one of you on Ignore.

YOU "think he meant." Why didn't he SAY what he meant? Is that too difficult? Again and again, YOUR FRIENDS put words in my mouth and then attack me for the words they put in my mouth. So I quote your friend, and you conveniently try to cover for him in ways nobody has begun to do for me. "Higher temperatures" are NOT brought on by "the increase of CO2." Higher temperatures are the result of seasonal changes, and winds. Whatever "new water levels" are you talking about! Ah, I see. Relative humidity is "constant." It doesn't fluctuate with seasonal temperatures, or wind currents. It's becoming clear to me now. Thank you for the science lesson. Every time I provide facts and statistics, I am misquoted, misinterpreted, browbeaten, castigated and told to "learn" from all those seasoned wits here. Even in such straightforward and incontestible matters as the Prisoner Riddle I posted, not one person in two hundred has had the decency, the courtesy of thanking me for an interesting puzzle that demonstrates how a large group of people, all viewing precisely the same information, can utterly fail to reach the correct conclusion. That was a valuable lesson which nobody on your side of the aisle would acknowledge, much less appreciate verbally. This is a function of your group's refusal to "change their minds" even when the lesson is obvious. They resent and therefore reject the source. Terribly unscientific, terribly political. And the pretense is that these two are mutually exclusive.

The Scary Graph (Keeling Curve) does not. And BTW, those "climate models" have been reliably worthless and inaccurate. Surely a few hundred billion dollars more in government grants will change everything.

"Science" is not advanced exclusively by government grants and largess. What do you think the $19.5 trillion debt bodes for the US, when the Left insists on increasing spending without limit, raising taxes "on the rich" without limit, and expanding the $200 TRILLION in unfunded mandates? Science demands more money. Welfare proponents demand more money. Educators demand more money. Artists, environmentalists, "activists" of all kinds, you name it, everyone pretends that the well will never run dry, just keep on sticking it to "the rich." And by the way, "the rich" never includes George Soros or John Kerry or Richard Branson or Al Gore or the Obamas, who by the way continue to suck HUNDREDS of millions of dollars as the flit from Washington, D.C. to Palm Springs to the Bahamas to Indonesia to Italy to Germany. And by the way, YOU cut back your carbon dioxide emissions 80%. The Obamas got places to go, people to see, beautiful, rich people. Important people.

Of course they didn't mean it as a lecture. They MEANT it as a condescending reprimand, in the same vein you presented "even you..." The pretense of the Left is that they are smarter and therefore correct. That does not follow. Nevertheless, any deviation from their "correct" narrative is promptly knocked down, as if by an Antifa gang.

Or have you not? Quite a few people in this forum have lectured me on "learning" here, ostensibly from them. Are they beyond learning? There is a widespread presumption on the Left that they are smarter than the "other" side, and the clear inference is always because they are smarter, they are right in whatever they say or opine. What is "smart"? The Unabomber is a very learned man, a former mathematics professor at Berkeley. How smart is he? I will leave that to each of you to ponder. It seems to me that all of us are smarter than any of us, and that we can learn from the unlikeliest of sources, sometimes even young children. There is great joy in learning, and as well in expressing gratitude and entertaining a good sense of humor, of which I have seen little anywhere in this forum. Self-deprecation comes to mind. Toward that end, I will relate a story of a brief conversation I had with a professor at Dartmouth. His published paper was on the internet, and I downloaded and read it. It was interesting and informative, but in his summary, he errantly used exactly the opposite word he intended, as was clear from the context. I phoned him and left a message on his answering machine. Within an hour, he called me back and said, "I wrote that paper fifteen years ago and you are the first one to bring that to my attention. Thank you!" "You're welcome, professor, but with all due respect, why is it there is so little correlation between common sense and education"? Without hesitation, the good professor replied, "Tell me about it!" What is more desperately needed in this forum is a willingness to consider other points of view, in a kind and good-humored, even self-deprecating perspective. Tell me about it.

Let me address the second snippet above before returning to the first. My POINT about water vapor is simply this. The Keeling Curve may be accurate as far as it goes, which is to say, carbon dioxide IS increasing, as shown. HOWEVER, the base is non-zero. The base is ~390 parts per MILLION! The annual INCREASE is 1.36 parts per MILLION! Now the significance of 1.36 parts per MILLION decreases tremendously when you redraw the graph with a zero base. It flattens the *scary graph* into something less frightening. Science should present data honestly, not with the intention to deceive. Now have I overlooked something? Could I be wrong in simply adding THE DOMINANT greenhouse gas to the Scary Graph? If so, please feel free to suggest my errors. So far, the most creative criticism has been from one fellow who suggested that I add oxygen and nitrogen, neither of which are greenhouse gases. Then too the comment was made that rain falls, and old water must somehow be different from new water. Please explain to me how old water vapor differs in its physico-chemical properties from newer water vapor.