How can somebody claim to be a 'master of science' when they use wikipedia and the IPCC as sources?

Question

littlero - i read everything i can find on both sides, but I don't claim to be a scientist or a master os science or anything intellectual

Answer 1

I'm glad to read your claim about checking out both sides of the argument. So I suggest that before wasting another 2 hours of time watching The Great Global Warming Swindle again, you check out a few of these links:

Miscellaneous critiques of the film:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk...

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/...

http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/09/the-...

http://currentera.com/SwindlersList.html

http://scan.editme.com/200703GGWS

The National Academy of Science in the UK comment on GGWS

http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=6245

University of Cambridge: “Scientific Response to GGWS”

http://www.cpi.cam.ac.uk/gore/PDF/GWS%20...

Video critique of The Great Global Warming Swindle by Stephen Nodvin

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

British Antarctic Survey on GGWS use of flawed data

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_bas/ne...

Rebuttal of GGWS by Sir John Houghton former professor of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Oxford and co-chair of first 3 IPCC reports.

http://www.jri.org.uk/news/Critique_Chan...

Seven major misrepresentations of science in GGWS

http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/3

Comments on GGWS by Dr. Carl Wunsch (interviewed in GGWS):

http://ocean.mit.edu/%7Ecwunsch/CHANNEL4...

ABC Australia interview of a skirming Martin Durkin and analysis of GGWS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIjGynF4q...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goDsc9IaS...

Answer 2

Science is not prersent at birth . People just aquire scientific knowledge. Itdoes not matter the source of knowledge it only matters about knowledge

Answer 3

They can't. Wikipedia is not accepted at universities simply due to its vulnerability to editing by anyone at any time. The editing may remain there until someone else notices it, which leaves a time when the text is therefore inaccurate or completely false.

The IPCC has been proven to be biased by the scientists that reject the IPCC's interpretation of their work, which may say exactly the opposite of what is claimed by the IPCC.

Check out this video:

The Truth About Climate Change: http://tinyurl.com/3xeokp

Answer 4

For some a book of original ideas would never be authored by them.  Although they have a lot to say, its always someone else who has said it, not them.  I look at junk science like dry ice, watch it disappear in the blink of an eye.

Answer 5

they arent bright enough to come up with their own conclusions.

Answer 6

There are a lot of people on this site that provide completely worthless links and Dana Master of Science is not one of them.  Yeah he could work a little harder and find something that wasn't from NASA or WIKI or IPCC you know maybe something from a church or a politician.  Or maybe some propaganda film that is poorly shot and doesn't cite anything or give you the credentials of the actors in it.  Yeah the issue is complex if fact it is very complex and the information is very easy to manipulate.  Really how many people actually know what Chaos theory is or what PPT stands for?   There is information on both sides that is in fact correct.  But thats not why I am responding to this question.  This forum is for questions and answers is not intended to be used to pick on people whose opinions differ from your own flat earth ideas.  It is intended to be provide people with good answers and from both sides.  So please do not single people out.

Answer 7

I've been asking myself that question ever since he gave himself that title. I know he claims to have degrees, but I have never seen anyhting from him that is from his own study on the subject. We all can study what someone else wrote and spout off about it, since that's what we do on here. But if he truly is a researcher he should have his own papers about his own findings.

Answer 8

and your sources are?

dont diss wikipedia! its as accurate as the encyclopedia brittanica and much more up to date.

Answer 9

Are you really a dog on a bidet?

Dana has a Master of Science. He's not claiming he is a master of science, but he does a good job representing scientific information and providing mainstream scientific data. At least he's not misrepresenting himself by proclaiming he's a Doctor, like some other people on here. And they know who they are...

Answer 10

They are not.  Anyone can claim to be anything on the internet.  Most likely they have never passed a college science class, or have never studied any science closely related to the issue of global warming.

Answer 11

I saw a similar post that specified "Left Wing sources like NASA and NOAA".  How do them fellers stand with you?

Answer 12

I read what I can from both sides. However, I can find very little on the skeptic side that is actual science.

Thing about wikipedia- all the sources are listed below. You can check where the info came from. But since Wikipedia takes the contraversial position that noah did NOT put two of every animal on an ark  a few thousand years ago in a worldwide flood, it has a liberal bias. Check conservipedia for a backwoods view of reality.

Answer 13

Actually, the IPCC consists of many scientists who have a h**l of lot of scientific qualifications and genuine science degrees.

But then, I guess you find it difficult to understand how a collection of people who've spent their lives studying science could be experts in......well......science.

By the way, the fact that you've chosen to post a question with the sole purpose of attacking someone is very sad, and shows you to be completely devoid of any knowledge which might pose a sensible counter-argument to what that person says.

I don't know whether that person has a science degree or not, but I can be 100% certain from their answers that they are very scientifically literate and educated, and so I find it highly likely that when they say they have a science degree, they actually DO have one.

This is the opposite to what I think about other personalities here (alluded to above), who profess to be "top global warming answerers" (which my dog could be if he had dextrous fingers to type with) but from whom I haven't seen a sensible scientific argument yet.

Answer 14

The internet is merely yellow journalism evolved.  There is very little on the internet that is accurate anymore.  There are so many examples where the internet tells absolute lies that it isn't even funny.  I referred to research I did back in the late 80's and early 90's when the internet was at least more honest about the Rottweiler.  The breed is a hybrid of a Doberman Pinscher and a black Lab.  Nowadays, I will bet that you will not find that information.  Instead you will get a bunch of junk about Rotts being of an ancient royal line and a Roman dog of some sort.  All total bull!

Look at these links for proof....  Sorry being a Wiki-poodle for a moment....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doberman_Pi...

http://images.google.com/images?q=doberm...

Answer 15

What sources would you accept as authoritative?