No I guess whatever YOU say man.... every time someone used even a hint of logical rebuttal against the junk science you keep as TRUTH you go all snark city.
Tells me you are just pounding an already bought and paid for drum, just like a good soldier does. When that drum is taken from you then you just revert to snark.
Let us just argue that the earth is only 5000 years old....( you and I are both more intelligent than that but we can keep some of the righties in the conversation this way) your data from the last 30 years does not even represent 1% percent of all the data available throughout time AND there is competeing data available that pushes back against what you already feel is FACT.... I do not know of any real scientist that would offer a conclusion and submit as fact... data from less than 1% of an available sample with ample contradictory data that is already in front of thier face. Now if the world is a million years old.... wow! Your "science" is not anywhere near being close to being acceptible. Your PROOF... garbage.... no matter how old you want to call the Earth.
Banging the drum? You mean like what you and the right are doing with “junk science?” Did you know that REAL scientists publish their studies for peer review and that a great deal of what the right latches on to is questioning methods and weighing of variable and not actual denial of climate change? Did you also know that the deniers paid for by big business do not?
Ice core samples from around the world can and do show CO2 levels and temperature change. That is not just the last 150 years of recorded weather. Those are facts. The information garnered from that is where the conflict of scientists is. Is this core area change caused by a local event at this period of time while another area does not show that change. The bull patty the right uses of saying the science was falsified is just lies. The emails were of scientists talking to each other on the weighting of values. Research by deniers - in an attempt to prove that the interpretation of facts was wrong - ended up proving them correct.
There is a great deal of room to qualify what the concrete facts mean, and good scientists are doing that.
What does “junk science” mean? Obviously, it is a propaganda tool developed by the right to support the right. But, beyond that what does it mean. I don’t think that there is any one definition, but I think of two off the bat that fit as what I would call “junk science.”
Studies paid for by a big corporation or a conglomerate of corporations to support a given conclusion. The company wants this answer and the study is to validate that answer. These “studies” always fall apart when experts examine them. These are never peer reviewed, but used as advertising.
Someone coming up with a hypothesis and creating a study that proves it with incorrect methods. The doctor that made the claims that vaccinations cause autism is one that comes to mind. He was well intentioned, but others could not replicate his findings or found counter proof that outweighed the study. These are more a benign “junk science.”
Now, is it possible that 90+ percent of all scientists in many different fields can ALL be wrong and actually be producing bad science? Is it possible that thousands of scientists from many fields of study can do research in many different ways and all come to the same conclusion wrongly? Anything is possible, but likely? However, the methods and practices of scientists are well established to help prevent human errors. The fact that different fields of study come at the same facts in very different ways is supportive when each field sees the same thing.
But, for you and the right to make the obvious propaganda claim that anything not supporting YOUR distortion is “junk science” is nothing but horrible. It is right and good for scientists to question and validate. But, for the right to grab on meta and claim that a minor thing invalidates everything else is wrong. The oceans and aggregate global yearly temperatures are rising. That does not mean that there are no cold days, or that out of the ordinary or that out of the ordinary weather events do not happen. It does not mean that a volcano cannot change a climate AREA for a short period of time, but does show that they are more localized (not global) and temporary.
But, none of that really matters because you and the right want to make a disgusting invalid claim that anything that does not support your political ideology is “junk science” and it seems the more valid the facts, the more the right claims “junk science.” The right has some stupid notion that some liberal/Kenyan/socialist/Nazi’s came up with an idea and got 90+ percent of scientist from many fields to support it when the reality is that those scientists started seeing patterns and working from different genre’s and a confluence of fact revealed a global pattern. But, because the left saw reality, the right sees it as an attack from the left and makes up propaganda and “junk science” in a disgusting pattern trying to sway the stupid into believing that it isn’t valid science.
When the real experts discuss climate change the argument is not whether there is global warming, but how MUCH man is affecting it. About 85% of the scientists from many fields agree that the cause is man, but question the degree of effect. The 15% came from two groups primarily. They were meteorologists and those working directly for oil companies. Meteorologists deal only with local climate and conditions mainly trying to predict short term weather forecasts. They do not deal global or long term. Those working for oil companies....
Einsteins theory of general relativity has been proved, and is accepted as real (but not complete). Yet, the right seems to still want to call it “junk science” and claim it is not correct.
It seems that the folks at Conservapedia – a sort of conservative alternative to the more familar online encyclopedia Wikipedia – are not fans of Einstein's most famous theory, general relativity. In fact, they view it as a far-reaching liberal conspiracy.
The website TPMMuckraker recently drew attention to a page on the site titled "Counterexamples to relativity". It says: "The theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world."
The Conservapedia page then lists 30 counterexamples to general relativity, any of which, it claims, "shows that the theory is incorrect". Many of these are bizarre, such as "the action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54." Apparently, Jesus's ability to instantaneously heal a child from a distance – his healing powers travelled through space faster than the speed of light – was evidence enough to rule out Einstein's theory. Of course, Jesus wasn't the only one to appear to violate Einstein's cosmic speed limit. So-called entangled quantum particles do it in labs all the time. (Church of the Entanglement, anyone?)
Scanning further pages on Conservapedia, it seems that the religious right's beef with Einstein runs deep. Just as evolution dissenters say they are being deprived of their "academic freedom", relativity deniers claim they are now in the same boat. "Despite censorship of dissent about relativity, evidence contrary to the theory is discussed outside of liberal universities," reads the website's main article on relativity.
In reality, general relativity has passed every experimental test to which it's been put – but Conservapedia isn't satisfied. They refer to a 1919 solar eclipse expedition that bore out the theory's prediction that starlight would be bent by the sun's gravity as "a dramatic but later discredited claim by Sir Arthur Eddington of experimental proof of general relativity". It's true that Eddington's results had large uncertainties, but the experiment has been tested and retested and the data holds up every time.
Read further and you will find this astonishing piece of information, clearly the smoking gun of the Einsteinian liberal conspiracy: "Barack Obama helped publish an article by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe to apply the relativistic concept of 'curvature of space' to promote a broad legal right to abortion".
Wait. What? The article in question is "The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What lawyers can learn from modern physics" (pdf) by Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School. Published in 1989 in the Harvard Law Review, the paper includes a "thank you" to Barack Obama in the acknowledgments, an unsurprising fact given that Obama was the journal's editor at the time.
In the article, Tribe uses metaphors of space-time curvature in the context of constitutional law, including an analysis of Roe v. Wade. "I do not address the subject because I am determined to bring science or mathematics into law," he writes. "Rather, my conjecture is that the metaphors and intuitions that guide physicists can enrich our comprehension of social and legal issues."
Nearly two decades later, physicist Frank Tipler took on Tribe's paper in an article on the Social Science Research Network entitled "The Obama-Tribe 'Curvature of Constitutional Space' Paper is Crackpot Physics". Coming from a physicist who authored the book The Physics of Christianity, in which he claims that without Jesus's resurrection, our universe couldn't exist, I am forced to question the meaning of "crackpot". It's no matter, though, because Tribe's grasp of general relativity is irrelevant – he was not writing a scientific paper, he was merely creating an analogy. But for Andy Schlafly, founder of Conservapedia and son of anti-abortion activist Phyllis Schlafly, the analogy was apparently enough to turn him off Einstein for good.
Despite the fact that it has passed test after test, you would be hard-pressed to find a single physicist who believes that general relativity is ultimately the correct theory of the universe. That's because it conflicts with quantum mechanics and is yet to be unified with the other three forces of nature. A theory of quantum gravity such as string theory will be needed to pick up where Einstein left off. General relativity is certainly not wrong – but it's not the whole story.