Skip to content

Think about it..

January 31, 2010

You lemmings that scream as loud as you can, just because. Think about this. If the evidence IS so overwhelming and the science is irrefutable, why would there EVER be a reason to fabricate ANY data? Wouldn’t the overwhelming evidence be RIGHT IN FRONT OF US? Would the data be so concrete we couldn’t debate it? Why would these ‘top scientists’ lie? Hide data? You do those things because you ARE lying and you ARE hiding the facts because both the DATA and the FACTS go against the arguments you are making, that’s why.

Remember “I’m not here to talk about that past” ?

Same thing.

11 Comments leave one →
  1. superjax permalink
    January 31, 2010 1:01 pm

    I can think of a few reasons why some scientists might lie or fudge data. It’s called $$$, same reason as some of you athletes lie about and hide injuries and take PEDs to score bigger contracts. I can imagine SOME scientists running studies on climate change might be inclined or induced into fudging data to keep the grant or funding spigot turned on, just as I can imagine same motivation fueling the lies and fudging of data by the climate change naysayer scientists you believe in who are paid by the focus and study groups set up and sponsored by the petroleum and gas industries.

    Makes you wonder Curt…who’s paying you?

  2. Juch an Jehwy permalink
    January 31, 2010 1:08 pm

    so you say that the whole thing is debatable…but anyone who doesnt agree with you is lying? and some sort of nonsensical lemming?

    Ill give you a moment to “rethink” what you’re saying, Curt. perhaps, like the Republicans who were “licking their chops!” at “getting!” Obama the other day, maybe you’re not used to the idea that not everybody is as clueless as yourself?

  3. jasonfreeman2000 permalink
    January 31, 2010 2:19 pm

    You mean like the secret military intelligence we all wanted see that we were assured showed WMD’s in Iraq? You are a clown. Think about this, who has the motivation in this discussion? What do scientists stand to gain from their report? What does big oil stand to lose? The evidence is in front of you, you just have to read it. But like the Health Care bill, its too much information for your primitive mind to comprehend.

    A republican parrot like you calling other people Lemmings is comical. You haven’t had an original thought come out of your mouth since you started yapping 5 years ago.

    If everyone has their own science and their own facts there can be no debate. Read something that isn’t funded by anyone with a financial stake and then make an educated decision.

    Having an open mind means looking at the facts and then forming an opinion. Any robot can have a set of prinicples and then pick and choose facts that support their opinion.

    And by the way, you should have blown the whistle on steroids in 98, before you signed contracts in Arizona and Boston. You benifited from the inflated salaries that McGuire, Sosa, Bonds, and Clemens helped create. Thats why the union towed the line, thats why the owners never said anything. If the max salary goes up, the minimum salary goes up. Don’t get sactimonious because you didn’t use steroids, you benefited from the era just like everyone else in your sport. There are no clean hands, so don’t lie to yourself and think your innocent.

  4. jasonfreeman2000 permalink
    January 31, 2010 2:31 pm

    When are you on WEEI again? I’ll call in and we can do this on the air so everyone can hear your nonsense. Unless you aren’t confident enough in your facts and opinions.

  5. misterguido permalink
    January 31, 2010 3:32 pm

    Curt, when did you turn into the political version of Dan Shaughnessy? You need to take a step back and re-evaluate where you’re at. You’ve become exactly what you hate… yet another piece of the media that willfully writes inflammatory, ill-informed crap to attract maximum attention to themselves.

    I dunno, maybe your vitriol will make you more money in the long run. Good luck with that. I’d rather have my integrity.

    To address your specific “argument” — you sound exactly like the people who claim that Curt Schilling is a fraud because he threw out the bloody sock. If you have evidence to present, present it… but here in America your guilty until proven innocent tactic doesn’t fly.

  6. lughlamfada permalink
    January 31, 2010 5:02 pm

    You are all responding like typical liberals by deflecting the question and focusing on something else. Curt asked how people can continue to believe that man-made global warming is gospel when those who conduct the research have:

    1) colluded to keep dissenting opinions out of scientific journals
    2) deliberately misrepresented their data
    3) refused to acknowledge Freedom of Information requests looking into their data
    4) proliferated hysterical extrapolations masquerading as fact that were taken from a climber’s magazine and an MA student’s thesis
    5) deleted emails containing contradictory data

    I’m not talking about Bush, Curt, the Yankees, WMDs, Iraq, Afghanistan, Taylor Swift, or Elvis Presley, I’m talking about the climate change scandals that seem to be breaking every single day. So if all of you liberals can stay on-target here and talk about the issues without going into a hysterical hissy fit about Curt, Bush, Republicans, and which end of the sandbox smells the worst, then by all means respond to what I’m saying.

    Scientists are supposed to form hypothesis and then prove or disprove those hypothesis depending on empirical evidence. They are NOT supposed to take a hypothesis they desperately WANT to be true and then ignore data that disproves– that is what we in academia call “academic misconduct.” I’m married to a biochemist, my brother is an environmental geoscientist, and each time they read the latest scandal from the climate change folks at the UN, they shake their heads because it’s bad for science. Science is not a place for ideologues and activists, it’s a place for people of integrity who are interested in learning the way the world works without changing data to suit their political and social agenda.

    You guys can talk about Bush and WMDs all you want, but the point is that man-made climate change as a theory has more holes in it than a target hulk, and no amount of screaming, bitching, and moaning is ever going to make something that is not supported by empirical evidence true. Get that through your kool-aid drinking skulls.


    • February 10, 2010 1:25 am

      There are no conspiracies to keep “opposing” views out of science journals. Certain work is not published in scientific journals because that work is rejected based upon the merits.

  7. socalsoxman permalink
    January 31, 2010 7:46 pm

    Mr. Schilling, may I ask why so angry and insulting? Lemmings? Is that what people who don’t share your worldview are to you? Ad hominem attacks are one of the weakest forms of argument, and the most glaring of fallacies employed by those unable to articulate their position clearly and factually. Your attempt to represent the alleged actions of a few individual climate scientists to attempt to discredit the findings of the whole of that field of scientific inquiry is emblematic of the further logical fallacies of composition and hasty generalization. Perhaps an enrollment in an introductory logic or a critical thinking course at Yavapai College or a local Massachusetts educational institution could provide you with the tools to properly understand and utilize the tools that rational discourse is founded upon. Or even perusing a logic text such as Irving Copi’s ‘Introduction To Logic’ might be helpful.

    The position you take that your opponents are ignorant lemmings, not gifted as you to true insight and the facts is demonstrably weak and unsupportable. Let’s just say as an analogy that some consortium of health care insurers, generating large profits from their cancer treatment facilities, decided that the efforts of the SHADE foundation and its agenda to reduce melanoma caused by overexposure to sunlight, were cutting into its financial interests by acting to shrink its future customer base of patient. They could then spend a good share of their profits on a misinformation campaign to recruit and pay “reputable scientists” and other mercenary experts for hire to criticize and attempt to discredit the “bogus” and “scientifically unproven” links between harmful solar radiation and skin cancer. They could get easily duped famous athletes philosophically committed to similar conservative causes to mock cancer scientists and SHADE members as screaming lemmings because of their adherence to their belief in lessening the incidence of sunlight caused melanomas through education and public awareness.

    This is basically what the oil and energy industries are doing every day Mr. Schilling, through their spending campaign to brainwash the public and pay their “top scientist” mouthpieces, ready to sell out humanity for their 30 pieces of silver. while trying to keep their bottom line profit fat and healthy. I suppose who most resembles lemmings in their headlong rush is up to debate and personal perspective. I just hope you figure it out before ending up in a sea of fur balls at the bottom of the cliff.

  8. syphax permalink
    February 1, 2010 12:19 am

    All I bring to this debate is an M.S. from MIT in environmental science. That puts me and my 1 published paper (Journal of Hydraulic Engineering) in maybe the A/AA leagues of science, but I know how to evaluate scientific research.

    People are acting like every wart they find in IPCC WG2 (Working Group 2, where most of the recent junk has been found) is malignant melonoma. Same for Swifthack/ClimateGate.

    The reason the impacts of elevated CO2 levels aren’t bleedingly obvious is because the strength of the signal (forcing due to increased CO2, CH4, etc) isn’t yet much bigger than the strength of the noise (natural variability).

    The problem is that by the time the signal gets strong enough (say, 540 ppm CO2, about 2x pre-industrial times) to make doubters unable to doubt any longer, it’s too flippin’ late to reverse course.

    So, option 1 is to start to turn the ship before we hit the iceberg field. Option 2 is to put down the binoculars (the focus on them might be a little off, after all) and say “I don’t see any icebergs! Besides, the ones I’ve heard about look so small. What’s the worst that could happen?”

  9. socalsoxman permalink
    February 1, 2010 1:02 am

    Lugh, you can preen on your tangential yet faux “we” connection to academia through marriage and kin all you like, but the fact remains that your proffered point and conclusion that ” man-made climate change as a theory has more holes in it than a target hulk” is still simply your opinion and unsupported by your five listed evidentiary snippets seeking to undermine the validity of man-made global warming science. Your argument is as spurious as Schilling’s in that even accepting the factuality of your contentions for the sake of argument, you’re assignation of these acts of academic misconduct is generally leveled at “those who conduct the research”. This is a generalization that tars the entire realm of research into climate change with your credibility tarnishing brush, if you are indeed asserting inclusion of ALL climate change/global warming researchers in your statement. I believe that would be a ridiculous assertion, but I welcome your evidence of proof if that is indeed your argument. If your more likely intention is instead to suggest that SOME climate change researchers have engaged in these examples of academic misconduct, then you as is Schilling, are guilty of the logical fallacy of composition by attributing the characteristics of the few to that of a much larger whole. Your premisses do not support your conclusion and render your argument invalid.

    A similar argument would be to ask Curt Schilling how can he and others believe in the Christian faith and the Bible as gospel when people like Jim Jones, Jimmy Swaggart, Scott Roeder, Jim Baker and others have murdered, philandered, and stolen acting in the name of Christ. The actions of an isolated few do not validly project to the whole of a group or association. Just because Republican Senator Larry Craig engaged in a little legislative misconduct in a bathroom stall and that one Republican Representative was diddling and texting the underage congressional pages, and Republican Senator John Ensign was screwing the office help and paying her and her husband to keep quiet about it, one cannot validly extrapolate and conclude that all Republican office holders are homosexuals, pedophiles, and whoremongerers. That would be as incorrect based upon your reasoning as the assumptions you have made about the science of man-made global warming effects.

  10. chrisholmes permalink
    February 2, 2010 10:21 am

    You’re a smart guy Curt. Throw your party alignment out the window for a minute and just look at the evidence.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

38 Pitches

Curt Schilling's Official Blog

%d bloggers like this: