Writer claims Trump raped her

[ecco]

OK, so click on this link and it will take you to my post where I respond to your question on evolution and creation, the relevance of which eludes me but must seem important to you.

Writer claims Trump raped her

Perhaps you can understand the causes of my confusion.

You supposedly are providing a link to msm coverage about AGW and you put it in a link titled "Writer claims Trump raped her".

I missed the original link because it was in a response to Subduction Zone. I don't read everything people write to other people.

But I'll have to give you one. The article in question did receive more "msm" coverage than it should have.

 

[fantome profane]

As someone who was raped at 13 and didn't go to the police because I was scared, ashamed, terrified, violated, alone and hurt,

I am sorry for what you went through. And I am sorry you had to address the ignorant nonsense presented in this thread. But thank you.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, you are correct, I did botch that somehow.
I'm pretty sure all of the posts I was responding to were Shad's, so please disregard my error, unless of course you want to respond them!
Sorry!

No worries SkepticThinker, it happens sometimes. And I'm sorry to hear about your abominable experience, may life make it up to you with untold blessings.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, let's see. How would I do that? Do I need to list all the actual scientists who disagree with her?

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
Consensus on Consensus - Cook et al. (2016)
Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle the expert climate consensus question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.





Wouldn't it be easier for you to list a dozen or so actual climatologists who agree with her?

I see you skipped this part...
ecco: Curry could not support her views.

Naturally agw alarmists disagree with Dr Curry, who shows that the science is not settled, no one is able to provide an accurate % number for the proportion of natural and human contributed CO2 caused warming.

Consensus only exists among the agw alarmist scientists that humans are the main cause of catastrophic warming, all climate scientists agree that the warming has occurred but is not catastrophic, and most concede that human derived CO2 is a part, but the main difference between alarmists and most of the skeptics is the natural versus manmade contribution.

When you look at the amount of warming, the vast majority of the IPCC future projections shown in past reports run above the observed temperature in time, so this is an indication they are putting too much emphasis on the anthropogenic contribution. Those that run closer to the observed trend mean the the warming at present does not reach the level of being of alarm to the end of the century, so no panic required.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

"Mark" the Congressman? You presume? Based on what - willful arrogant ignorance?

Mark Steyn is not a congressman, he is a Canadian author. My guess is there is some record of the state of the weather experienced by the pilgrims at the time, and if I am not mistaken, the senator was going on about the present wild weather there and using it as an example of climate change.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Perhaps you can understand the causes of my confusion.

You supposedly are providing a link to msm coverage about AGW and you put it in a link titled "Writer claims Trump raped her".

I missed the original link because it was in a response to Subduction Zone. I don't read everything people write to other people.

But I'll have to give you one. The article in question did receive more "msm" coverage than it should have.

It is the board that is responsible for the thread title in the url associated with linking posts ecco, the linker, in this case me, plays no part in the the link title. If you have not used this option before, it works like this...at the bottom right of this post you will see it as number #566 on this thread, If someone wants to link to it, they click on it and a windows comes up showing the link which will show the title of the thread. Yes I do understand that if you were not familiar with it, you may have been confused.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Naturally agw alarmists disagree with Dr Curry, who shows that the science is not settled, no one is able to provide an accurate % number for the proportion of natural and human contributed CO2 caused warming.

Consensus only exists among the agw alarmist scientists that humans are the main cause of catastrophic warming, all climate scientists agree that the warming has occurred but is not catastrophic, and most concede that human derived CO2 is a part, but the main difference between alarmists and most of the skeptics is the natural versus manmade contribution.

When you look at the amount of warming, the vast majority of the IPCC future projections shown in past reports run above the observed temperature in time, so this is an indication they are putting too much emphasis on the anthropogenic contribution. Those that run closer to the observed trend mean the the warming at present does not reach the level of being of alarm to the end of the century, so no panic required.

You need to support that claim. From what I have seen temperatures are touchdown the middle of even higher.

And you have been shown multiple times to be wrong about the consensus. Continuing to claim otherwise in the face of all of the evidence makes you either a liar, a science denier, or both.

 

[Shad]

Great. I don't think rape is funny.

Sure. That is why it is called dark/black humour

No. I said he said it. He did say it.

No you said it was the first thing he said which was wrong.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and there are 20+ people all accusing him of doing the same thing, then yeah, I'm gonna lean that why.

This is why you have no standard

Do you think that's unreasonable?

Yes as accusations can not be used as evidence in a vacuum

And do you think his response was an intelligent one to make?

Nope.

Do you think it makes him appear innocent?

Irrelevant as I hold to the standard of evidence.

There are 20+ alleged victims, many of whom told people about what happened to them many years ago.

Accusations are not evidence.

We're not in a court room.

Sure. You are for mob justice without evidence. That is why courts exist so people like you can "hang" people based on an accusation

We're talking about the things he said in response to a question about whether or not he raped a woman.

Yes... and?

Ah, so you're of that mindset.

Wrong. If someone is sexually assaulted yet still works with their attacker they are not the victim. They have traded sex for the role. Now they regret it. Their problem.

Look up the word integrity

As someone who was raped at 13 and didn't go to the police because I was scared, ashamed, terrified, violated, alone and hurt, I have some choice words for you about what you've said here, but I can't share them on this forum. Nice attitude you've got there.

Wrong. There is a difference between say a few months or a year and 15 years. If someone sits around for 15 years to bring it up I am not going to believe them without evidence. Perhaps you should consider the lapse in time is not automatically fear. If she was crippled by fear for 15 years she needs to be institutionalized.

One single word, that speaks so many volumes of words.

They traded sex for an acting role. That makes them a whore.

She must be a bimbo, right? Gee, I wonder why women don't immediately come out and report it when they're sexually assaulted.

They traded sex for an acting role.

Yeah! Because ... whores or something.

Trading sex for a role.

She has friends that she told about when it happened.

Hearsay. None of these supposed friend have said a word. Think about that.

Ah, there it is again. Men don't assault women. Women are just whores and gold diggers who throw themselves at men. They must be asking for it. I've heard that BS before.

Wrong. They traded sex for a role. If you work with your attacker after the supposed attack then the accusation has major issue. You are ignoring this factor.

For example Salma Hayek claims threats and sexual demands, including death threats, during the production of Frida. Yet she does not leave the cast. Never makes a police report. She finishes the movie and gets paid. Think about that

You and I are done.
Have a nice day.

Saves me the time so I do not need to respond to fiction and babble. TY.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You need to support that claim. From what I have seen temperatures are touchdown the middle of even higher.

And you have been shown multiple times to be wrong about the consensus. Continuing to claim otherwise in the face of all of the evidence makes you either a liar, a science denier, or both.

This graph from Prof Ed Hawkins from his Climate Lab Book page compares observations of global temperature with CMIP5 simulations assessed by the IPCC 5th Assessment Report.

You will note that there are more CMIP5 model projections above the observed than under it! How can you be wrong about almost every aspect of the present state of climate science you raise, do you not follow climate scientist's blogs who are on the job all the time?

Updated version of IPCC AR5 Figure 11.25a, showing observations and the CMIP5 model projections relative to 1986-2005. The black lines represent observational datasets (HadCRUT4.5, Cowtan & Way, NASA GISTEMP, NOAA GlobalTemp, BEST).

Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book

I have not been shown there is a consensus, only claims by some of the more extreme alarmists, how could there be a consensus when reputable climate scientists, for example, Dr Curry, who is invited by both Congressional House and Senate committees on climate invite her to provide testimony which questions the validity of agw alarmist science. Note I use the adjective "alarmist", for Dr Curry has no problem with the idea that humans have an affect on temperature, she does not think it is as great as the agw extremists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This graph from Prof Ed Hawkins from his Climate Lab Book page compares observations of global temperature with CMIP5 simulations assessed by the IPCC 5th Assessment Report.

You will note that there are more CMIP5 model projections above the observed than under it! How can you be wrong about almost every aspect of the present state of climate science you raise, do you not follow climate scientist's blogs who are on the job all the time?

Updated version of IPCC AR5 Figure 11.25a, showing observations and the CMIP5 model projections relative to 1986-2005. The black lines represent observational datasets (HadCRUT4.5, Cowtan & Way, NASA GISTEMP, NOAA GlobalTemp, BEST).

I have not been shown there is a consensus, only claims by some of the more extreme alarmists, how could there be a consensus when reputable climate scientists, for example, Dr Curry, who is invited by both Congressional House and Senate committees on climate invite her to provide testimony which questions the validity of agw alarmist science. Note I use the adjective "alarmist", for Dr Curry has no problem with the idea that humans have an affect on temperature, she does not think it is as great as the agw extremists.

Of course you have been shown that there is a consensus. Let's not lie. If you call someone an "alarmist" that puts a huge burden of proof upon you. You were given evidence that 97% of climate scientists You are not a proper judge. You are highly biased.

Any your bias is shown by the evidence that you present. That chart supports my claim and negates yours. That chart was a response to a dishonest claim by deniers. You should always link the source of your quotes or graphs. Not to do so makes it look like as if you are trying to lie by hiding something. But I found where that graph came from and this article explains it:

Heartland's '6 Reasons To Be A Climate-Change Skeptic' Are Six Demonstrable Falsehoods


"In 2014, the truth came out: Spencer’s UAH team had made a huge mistake in the calibration of their data. Instead of negligible upper-atmosphere warming, they found that the upper atmosphere had been warming at +0.14 degrees per decade, double the 1880-2014 rate of 0.07 degrees per decade. The other major satellite data set, RSS, also found a calibration error, meaning the Earth warmed 140% faster since 1998 than previous conclusions indicated. At the same time, the ground-based data from NOAA, NASA, the Hadley center and BEST all displayed agreement with one another. Once the 2014, 2015 and 2016 data are also included, the above graph shows the scientific truth: the models are very much in line with what we observe. Climate scientists, using current science, are successful in predicting temperatures."

If you did not read the whole thing let me condense it even more for you:

"the above graph shows the scientific truth: the models are very much in line with what we observe".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Of course you have been shown that there is a consensus. Let's not lie. If you call someone an "alarmist" that puts a huge burden of proof upon you. You were given evidence that 97% of climate scientists You are not a proper judge. You are highly biased.

Any your bias is shown by the evidence that you present. That chart supports my claim and negates yours. That chart was a response to a dishonest claim by deniers. You should always link the source of your quotes or graphs. Not to do so makes it look like as if you are trying to lie by hiding something. But I found where that graph came from and this article explains it:

Heartland's '6 Reasons To Be A Climate-Change Skeptic' Are Six Demonstrable Falsehoods


"In 2014, the truth came out: Spencer’s UAH team had made a huge mistake in the calibration of their data. Instead of negligible upper-atmosphere warming, they found that the upper atmosphere had been warming at +0.14 degrees per decade, double the 1880-2014 rate of 0.07 degrees per decade. The other major satellite data set, RSS, also found a calibration error, meaning the Earth warmed 140% faster since 1998 than previous conclusions indicated. At the same time, the ground-based data from NOAA, NASA, the Hadley center and BEST all displayed agreement with one another. Once the 2014, 2015 and 2016 data are also included, the above graph shows the scientific truth: the models are very much in line with what we observe. Climate scientists, using current science, are successful in predicting temperatures."

If you did not read the whole thing let me condense it even more for you:

"the above graph shows the scientific truth: the models are very much in line with what we observe".

You do understand the meaning of the word "consensus", Dr Curry is a climate scientist and she is not part of any alarmist consensus. There is no consensus among all climate scientists!

When you have the error bars set as large as they are, it is easy to show that all models are in line with observations. But look at the temperature projections and you will note that the majority run hot as I said.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do understand the meaning of the word "consensus", Dr Curry is a climate scientist and she is not part of any alarmist consensus. There is no consensus among all climate scientists!

When you have the error bars set as large as they are, it is easy to show that all models are in line with observations. But look at the temperature projections and you will note that the majority run hot as I said.

LOL! You just contradicted yourself. By claiming that she was not part of the consensus you also claimed she was not a climate scientist. And you need to prove that scientists that can get their work published in well respected peer reviewed journals are "alarmists". I seriously suggest that you drop the pejorative term. You make yourself look like a liar when you make accusations against others that you cannot defend.

And there were no error bars in the graph that you posted. Do you even understand what an error bar is?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

LOL! You just contradicted yourself. By claiming that she was not part of the consensus you also claimed she was not a climate scientist. And you need to prove that scientists that can get their work published in well respected peer reviewed journals are "alarmists". I seriously suggest that you drop the pejorative term. You make yourself look like a liar when you make accusations against others that you cannot defend.

And there were no error bars in the graph that you posted. Do you even understand what an error bar is?

I can follow the obvious fact that she, as a climate scientist, is not a part of any consensus, but it must logically follow then that there is no consensus among all climate scientists. She can't stop being a climate scientist because she does not agree with other climate scientists.

All climate scientists get their papers published, not just alarmists.

Why do you say it makes me look like a liar when I point out that none of the alarmist climate scientists can say precisely what is the % contribution of human caused warming compared to the natural contribution of warming. The science is not settled.

You quoted what Prof Hawking had said, the graph I posted was based on the IPCC AR5 graph which is the one with the uncertainty lines, the dark lines above and below model projections spread, ie., the grey shaded areas which represent the spaghetti lines is the other graph.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can follow the obvious fact that she, as a climate scientist, is not a part of any consensus, but it must logically follow then that there is no consensus among all climate scientists. She can't stop being a climate scientist because she does not agree with other climate scientists.

Once again you contradict yourself. You do need to work on your logic a bit. Is she a climate scientist? Then she is part of the consensus. But you might have a point. Her claims were refuted by other posters here.

All climate scientists get their papers published, not just alarmists.

That is right. Most climate scientists are not alarmists. You have not been able to substantiate that claim. Most climate scientists, a very strong consensus of 97% agree that man is the cause of global warming. Once again who are these supposed "alarmists"?

Why do you say it makes me look like a liar when I point out that none of the alarmist climate scientists can say precisely what is the % contribution of human caused warming compared to the natural contribution of warming. The science is not settled.

You appear to be misusing the term "alarmists". That makes you look like a liar. If you can't justify your claim, and it appears that you cannot then when you insist on using a term that you cannot support it makes you look dishonest. I would suggest that you drop it if you want to be taken seriously.

If you can post a graph you can post a link.

By the way, what makes you think that they cannot identify the percentage of man's contribution? Where did you read that? Once again when you make a claim you need to be able to support it.

You quoted what Prof Hawking had said, the graph I posted was based on the IPCC AR5 graph which is the one with the uncertainty lines, the dark lines above and below model projections spread, ie., the grey shaded areas which represent the spaghetti lines is the other graph.

Once again, you demonstrate that you do not understand what error bars are. We were discussing the previous graph without error bars. I am not doing your homework for you again. If you post a graph without a link it is worthless. You need to show that you are getting your info from reliable sources. Graphs without a link are worthless in a debate like this. Without an explanation of what we are seeing a graph like this is meaningless.

If you can post a graph you can post a link.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Once again you contradict yourself. You do need to work on your logic a bit. Is she a climate scientist? Then she is part of the consensus. But you might have a point. Her claims were refuted by other posters here.


That is right. Most climate scientists are not alarmists. You have not been able to substantiate that claim. Most climate scientists, a very strong consensus of 97% agree that man is the cause of global warming. Once again who are these supposed "alarmists"?



You appear to be misusing the term "alarmists". That makes you look like a liar. If you can't justify your claim, and it appears that you cannot then when you insist on using a term that you cannot support it makes you look dishonest. I would suggest that you drop it if you want to be taken seriously.

If you can post a graph you can post a link.

By the way, what makes you think that they cannot identify the percentage of man's contribution? Where did you read that? Once again when you make a claim you need to be able to support it.

Once again, you demonstrate that you do not understand what error bars are. We were discussing the previous graph without error bars. I am not doing your homework for you again. If you post a graph without a link it is worthless. You need to show that you are getting your info from reliable sources. Graphs without a link are worthless in a debate like this. Without an explanation of what we are seeing a graph like this is meaningless.

If you can post a link you can post a link.

Your English may be lacking, a consensus is arrived at by internal agreement, she can't be denied her climate science status for not agreeing with other climate scientists, nor can someone make her name a part of a consensus when she does not give permission, there is no consensus.

Using the term alarmist wrt climate scientists who are sounding the alarm wrt catastrophic climate change is not lying, again I think your English may be lacking. And I think you had better read the forum's rules about calling other members liars.

The link is the one I provided, we are talking about Prof Hawkins site... Here it again!

Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book

If they knew the % contribution, the projections would be accurate, the fact that most run hotter than observed is because they are attributing too much human GHG contribution.

I am afraid your English may not be up to it, read Dr Hawkin's blog post, I explained to you the relationship between the two and now it appears you think the first graph is somehow based on different data than the second. they are the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your English may be lacking, a consensus is arrived at by internal agreement, she can't be denied her climate science status for not agreeing with other climate scientists, nor can someone make her name a part of a consensus when she does not give permission, there is no consensus.

Using the term alarmist wrt climate scientists who are sounding the alarm wrt catastrophic climate change is not lying, again I think your English may be lacking. And I think you had better read the forum's rules about calling other members liars.

The link is the one I provided, we are talking about Prof Hawkins site... Here it again!

Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book

If they knew the % contribution, the projections would be accurate, the fact that most run hotter than observed is because they are attributing too much human GHG contribution.

I am afraid your English may not be up to it, read Dr Hawkin's blog post, I explained to you the relationship between the two and now it appears you think the first graph is somehow based on different data than the second. they are the same.

My English is fine. The consensus includes both those that support and oppose a concept. It is rather meaningless to exclude those that do not agree. If one only lists those that agree, or those that disagree with an idea one does not know how strong a consensus is. That is why if she was a climate scientist she would be part of the consensus. She would be in the part, the very small part, that disagrees. Her permission has nothing to do with it. Once again by claiming that she is not part of the consensus you are claiming that she is not a climate scientist. In fact if anyone is an "alarmist" it would be the people on the fringe. A group as small as 3% is very very fringy. This may help:

consensus - Dictionary Definition

Now if you want to discuss the models we can do that tomorrow. It is getting rather late for me, but I do thank you for the belated link. I hope that you do realize that models are not only tested by looking forward, but by looking backwards as well. And yes, you are still misusing the term "alarmist". If you continue to use it inappropriately I will simply thank you for admitting that you are wrong. Deal with their work, see if you can find any holes in that.

Meanwhile you might try to see if you can understand how climate scientists can tell where CO2 came from. See you tomorrow.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

My English is fine. The consensus includes both those that support and oppose a concept. It is rather meaningless to exclude those that do not agree. If one only lists those that agree, or those that disagree with an idea one does not know how strong a consensus is. That is why if she was a climate scientist she would be part of the consensus. She would be in the part, the very small part, that disagrees. Her permission has nothing to do with it. Once again by claiming that she is not part of the consensus you are claiming that she is not a climate scientist. In fact if anyone is an "alarmist" it would be the people on the fringe. A group as small as 3% is very very fringy. This may help:

consensus - Dictionary Definition

Now if you want to discuss the models we can do that tomorrow. It is getting rather late for me, but I do thank you for the belated link. I hope that you do realize that models are not only tested by looking forward, but by looking backwards as well. And yes, you are still misusing the term "alarmist". If you continue to use it inappropriately I will simply thank you for admitting that you are wrong. Deal with their work, see if you can find any holes in that.

Meanwhile you might try to see if you can understand how climate scientists can tell where CO2 came from. See you tomorrow.

I will guess that English is not your first language, which doesn't have to be a problem so long as you are open to the possibility that sometimes you will not see the nuance in some narrative or explanation. But to be clear, if there are differences of opinion among people on a topic or subject, in this instance the climate scientists wrt the theory, it would be said that consensus is lacking. If they were to overcome their differences by discussion and debate, then it would be said that they have reached a consensus. It is not a group consensus when some members of the group oppose, I think you need to talk it over with a friend whose has a good grasp of English.

I will put down your misunderstanding of the validity of using the term alarmist wrt the ongoing climate change narrative to your English, check with your English speaking friends.

Backcasting is done to fine tune models, but the latest backcasting you see on IPCC graphs are different to the earlier ones, and these earlier ones before that. The researchers modify the future predictive program to best fit the actual past observed data, so it can't ever be used to prove how well it fits with the observed, its real value will depend on how well it fits the future observed temperature.

 

[SalixIncendium]

**MOD POST**

Rule 1 Reminder​

1. Personal Comments About Members and Staff
Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff. Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack.

Attack each other's ideas to your hearts' content, but ad hominem attacks are considered a violation of Rule 1 and and further such action will be subject to moderation in this thread.

Play nice!​

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will guess that English is not your first language, which doesn't have to be a problem so long as you are open to the possibility that sometimes you will not see the nuance in some narrative or explanation. But to be clear, if there are differences of opinion among people on a topic or subject, in this instance the climate scientists wrt the theory, it would be said that consensus is lacking. If they were to overcome their differences by discussion and debate, then it would be said that they have reached a consensus. It is not a group consensus when some members of the group oppose, I think you need to talk it over with a friend whose has a good grasp of English.

I will put down your misunderstanding of the validity of using the term alarmist wrt the ongoing climate change narrative to your English, check with your English speaking friends.

Backcasting is done to fine tune models, but the latest backcasting you see on IPCC graphs are different to the earlier ones, and these earlier ones before that. The researchers modify the future predictive program to best fit the actual past observed data, so it can't ever be used to prove how well it fits with the observed, its real value will depend on how well it fits the future observed temperature.

You are projecting once again. You do not understand the term "consensus" . A consensus is not an example of everyone in a group agreeing. The definition I linked for you made that clear. A consensus is when there is a clear majority that supports an idea of claim. A "strong consensus" is usually when the overwhelming majority agrees to an idea. One cannot have a "consensus" without some dissent. Therefore when you claim that your failed geographer is not part of the consensus you are claiming that she is not part of the group with an opinion. You are claiming that she is not a climate scientist.

Second, the "alarmists" would have to be the ones making excited claims. Climate scientists do not do that. Now you may misinterpret their work. Many non-scientists do that. But what you fail to recognize is that you keep making a claim that you have not and almost certainly cannot support. You need to show that they are making over the top claims and the only evidence that you have provided so far has refuted your claims.

When you do not understand basic English and accuse others of your error it does not look good. Instead of making false claims that you cannot support you should be trying to understand your errors.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are projecting once again. You do not understand the term "consensus" . A consensus is not an example of everyone in a group agreeing. The definition I linked for you made that clear. A consensus is when there is a clear majority that supports an idea of claim. A "strong consensus" is usually when the overwhelming majority agrees to an idea. One cannot have a "consensus" without some dissent. Therefore when you claim that your failed geographer is not part of the consensus you are claiming that she is not part of the group with an opinion. You are claiming that she is not a climate scientist.

Second, the "alarmists" would have to be the ones making excited claims. Climate scientists do not do that. Now you may misinterpret their work. Many non-scientists do that. But what you fail to recognize is that you keep making a claim that you have not and almost certainly cannot support. You need to show that they are making over the top claims and the only evidence that you have provided so far has refuted your claims.

When you do not understand basic English and accuse others of your error it does not look good. Instead of making false claims that you cannot support you should be trying to understand your errors.

Your link does not say what you think it says.....it says....agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole and adds this to help you understand “the lack of consensus reflected differences in theoretical positions”. Seek advice from someone else if you don't believe me, anyone volunteer?

Scientists are human, some make "excited claims".