Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
Apologies, I realised I was being very naive in posting what I did but having just been called an activist and a troll I thought maybe worth explaining myself. It's not impossible for someone to subscribe to New Scientist as well as evo, Autocar and Bike and to go see the Uncaged Monkeys as well as doing trackdays. If you're interested in how stuff works then all of these things appeal.
When I saw the Science! forum I thought it might actually be for people interested in science, so it would be something I could contribute to. You live and learn I guess. Maybe they could move this thread to a new forum Pseudoscience! where it would fit in perfectly.
For someone with a genuine interest in science it's utterly astonishing to see the level of antagonism generated by a mainstream view. Climate change is a well established field with broad agreement amongst thousands of researchers around the world. Whereas views you see on this thread are from the same lunatic fringe as anti-vaxxers, homeopaths and other anti-scientific nonsense. You honestly think that the Royal Society (with 80 Nobel laureates among its members) for example speaks for special interest groups? I guess the Delingpoles and Moncktons of this world really have been incredibly effective at getting their message out there. But then it's much easier to pick at the edges of other people's work rather doing anything useful yourself.
Science really is an amazing subject and you should try actually finding out about it rather than dismissing it as the work of a leftist conspiracy. And you should all read this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Know-What-isnt-Fallibi...
When I saw the Science! forum I thought it might actually be for people interested in science, so it would be something I could contribute to. You live and learn I guess. Maybe they could move this thread to a new forum Pseudoscience! where it would fit in perfectly.
For someone with a genuine interest in science it's utterly astonishing to see the level of antagonism generated by a mainstream view. Climate change is a well established field with broad agreement amongst thousands of researchers around the world. Whereas views you see on this thread are from the same lunatic fringe as anti-vaxxers, homeopaths and other anti-scientific nonsense. You honestly think that the Royal Society (with 80 Nobel laureates among its members) for example speaks for special interest groups? I guess the Delingpoles and Moncktons of this world really have been incredibly effective at getting their message out there. But then it's much easier to pick at the edges of other people's work rather doing anything useful yourself.
Science really is an amazing subject and you should try actually finding out about it rather than dismissing it as the work of a leftist conspiracy. And you should all read this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Know-What-isnt-Fallibi...
Dear EG,
dp is also protesting at the reception he's got here.
Again I ask him to suggest the sceptic viewpoint at the various believer fora and see what a hostile reception is actually like.
That is if it isn't summarily deleted or altered,
regards,
Jet
El Guapo said:
Ah, the old disbelievers are lunatics argument.
If you want to talk about pseudoscience perhaps we could have a chat about the hockey stick, or maybe "hiding the decline".
I posted earlier that I thought dp was Prof Lewendowski. I am now sure If you want to talk about pseudoscience perhaps we could have a chat about the hockey stick, or maybe "hiding the decline".
dp is also protesting at the reception he's got here.
Again I ask him to suggest the sceptic viewpoint at the various believer fora and see what a hostile reception is actually like.
That is if it isn't summarily deleted or altered,
regards,
Jet
jet_noise said:
Dear EG,
dp is also protesting at the reception he's got here.
Again I ask him to suggest the sceptic viewpoint at the various believer fora and see what a hostile reception is actually like.
That is if it isn't summarily deleted or altered,
regards,
Jet
El Guapo said:
Ah, the old disbelievers are lunatics argument.
If you want to talk about pseudoscience perhaps we could have a chat about the hockey stick, or maybe "hiding the decline".
I posted earlier that I thought dp was Prof Lewendowski. I am now sure If you want to talk about pseudoscience perhaps we could have a chat about the hockey stick, or maybe "hiding the decline".
dp is also protesting at the reception he's got here.
Again I ask him to suggest the sceptic viewpoint at the various believer fora and see what a hostile reception is actually like.
That is if it isn't summarily deleted or altered,
regards,
Jet
hmmm
only ever posed in this thread, No details of cars owned in his profile....
Definatly a mole.
He shows all the usual ability to ignore any points put to him for consideration.
Will his next demand be for a "List"?
I have loved science since I was a child
And now I am a very old man who is disappointed at the way science has been hijacked by "consensus".
Where is the science, where is the discovery, where is the probing for the truth.
In my experience nowhere near a climate scientist.
Ask a testing question and hear the dull resounding thump of heavy doors slamming into your face.
Consensus in science, it ain't scientific it's political.
b
Will his next demand be for a "List"?
I have loved science since I was a child
And now I am a very old man who is disappointed at the way science has been hijacked by "consensus".
Where is the science, where is the discovery, where is the probing for the truth.
In my experience nowhere near a climate scientist.
Ask a testing question and hear the dull resounding thump of heavy doors slamming into your face.
Consensus in science, it ain't scientific it's political.
b
Edited by perdu on Wednesday 27th February 19:52
d0ntp4n1c said:
Science really is an amazing subject and you should try actually finding out about it rather than dismissing it as the work of a leftist conspiracy.
And maybe you should consider what "Scientific Consensus" actually is, and it's worth without the evidence to back it up. People have given you numerous examples of Scientific Consensus that have turned out to be completely incorrect, so why do you believe the GW Consensus is any different?Also why do you think that Phil Jones answered that question in a way that completely goes against all his previous assertions? Do you now think his opinion is worthless?
d0ntp4n1c said:
Apologies, I realised I was being very naive in posting what I did but having just been called an activist and a troll I thought maybe worth explaining myself. It's not impossible for someone to subscribe to New Scientist as well as evo, Autocar and Bike and to go see the Uncaged Monkeys as well as doing trackdays. If you're interested in how stuff works then all of these things appeal.
When I saw the Science! forum I thought it might actually be for people interested in science, so it would be something I could contribute to. You live and learn I guess. Maybe they could move this thread to a new forum Pseudoscience! where it would fit in perfectly.
For someone with a genuine interest in science it's utterly astonishing to see the level of antagonism generated by a mainstream view. Climate change is a well established field with broad agreement amongst thousands of researchers around the world. Whereas views you see on this thread are from the same lunatic fringe as anti-vaxxers, homeopaths and other anti-scientific nonsense. You honestly think that the Royal Society (with 80 Nobel laureates among its members) for example speaks for special interest groups? I guess the Delingpoles and Moncktons of this world really have been incredibly effective at getting their message out there. But then it's much easier to pick at the edges of other people's work rather doing anything useful yourself.
Science really is an amazing subject and you should try actually finding out about it rather than dismissing it as the work of a leftist conspiracy. And you should all read this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Know-What-isnt-Fallibi...
How about you answer some questions first.When I saw the Science! forum I thought it might actually be for people interested in science, so it would be something I could contribute to. You live and learn I guess. Maybe they could move this thread to a new forum Pseudoscience! where it would fit in perfectly.
For someone with a genuine interest in science it's utterly astonishing to see the level of antagonism generated by a mainstream view. Climate change is a well established field with broad agreement amongst thousands of researchers around the world. Whereas views you see on this thread are from the same lunatic fringe as anti-vaxxers, homeopaths and other anti-scientific nonsense. You honestly think that the Royal Society (with 80 Nobel laureates among its members) for example speaks for special interest groups? I guess the Delingpoles and Moncktons of this world really have been incredibly effective at getting their message out there. But then it's much easier to pick at the edges of other people's work rather doing anything useful yourself.
Science really is an amazing subject and you should try actually finding out about it rather than dismissing it as the work of a leftist conspiracy. And you should all read this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Know-What-isnt-Fallibi...
Mine is "where precisely is the missing f
king warming"?I've looked down the back of the sofa and it certainly isn't there...
d0ntp4n1c said:
Apologies, I realised I was being very naive in posting what I did but having just been called an activist and a troll I thought maybe worth explaining myself. It's not impossible for someone to subscribe to New Scientist as well as evo, Autocar and Bike and to go see the Uncaged Monkeys as well as doing trackdays. If you're interested in how stuff works then all of these things appeal.
When I saw the Science! forum I thought it might actually be for people interested in science, so it would be something I could contribute to. You live and learn I guess. Maybe they could move this thread to a new forum Pseudoscience! where it would fit in perfectly.
For someone with a genuine interest in science it's utterly astonishing to see the level of antagonism generated by a mainstream view. Climate change is a well established field with broad agreement amongst thousands of researchers around the world. Whereas views you see on this thread are from the same lunatic fringe as anti-vaxxers, homeopaths and other anti-scientific nonsense. You honestly think that the Royal Society (with 80 Nobel laureates among its members) for example speaks for special interest groups? I guess the Delingpoles and Moncktons of this world really have been incredibly effective at getting their message out there. But then it's much easier to pick at the edges of other people's work rather doing anything useful yourself.
Science really is an amazing subject and you should try actually finding out about it rather than dismissing it as the work of a leftist conspiracy. And you should all read this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Know-What-isnt-Fallibi...
So why haven't you refuted any of the claims presented to you since you arrived?When I saw the Science! forum I thought it might actually be for people interested in science, so it would be something I could contribute to. You live and learn I guess. Maybe they could move this thread to a new forum Pseudoscience! where it would fit in perfectly.
For someone with a genuine interest in science it's utterly astonishing to see the level of antagonism generated by a mainstream view. Climate change is a well established field with broad agreement amongst thousands of researchers around the world. Whereas views you see on this thread are from the same lunatic fringe as anti-vaxxers, homeopaths and other anti-scientific nonsense. You honestly think that the Royal Society (with 80 Nobel laureates among its members) for example speaks for special interest groups? I guess the Delingpoles and Moncktons of this world really have been incredibly effective at getting their message out there. But then it's much easier to pick at the edges of other people's work rather doing anything useful yourself.
Science really is an amazing subject and you should try actually finding out about it rather than dismissing it as the work of a leftist conspiracy. And you should all read this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Know-What-isnt-Fallibi...
Edited by Art0ir on Wednesday 27th February 23:27
mybrainhurts said:
d0ntp4n1c said:
Maybe they could move this thread to a new forum Pseudoscience! where it would fit in perfectly.
The irony is strong in this one...
d0ntp4n1c said:
Science really is an amazing subject and you should try actually finding out about it rather than dismissing it as the work of a leftist conspiracy
Some people are just wired up differently. You and I know what science is as school when we were young didn't have to indoctrinate global warming into us, but 'science' is just a word, and to the young and clueless it just means something we'd usually term 'religion'.Otispunkmeyer said:
From the politics thread:
New paper published claiming Atmospheric CO2 lags changes in land and sea temperature (Done using all the usual and freely available temperature and CO2 records, so nothing bespoke). See here:
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest...
Download the paper here: (well if you access from a university you can get it.... Erm, nudge nudge wink wink...PM)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
DP arrived only a couple of posts after Otis posted this, was it to deflect attention form it??New paper published claiming Atmospheric CO2 lags changes in land and sea temperature (Done using all the usual and freely available temperature and CO2 records, so nothing bespoke). See here:
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest...
Download the paper here: (well if you access from a university you can get it.... Erm, nudge nudge wink wink...PM)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
Jaged said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
From the politics thread:
New paper published claiming Atmospheric CO2 lags changes in land and sea temperature (Done using all the usual and freely available temperature and CO2 records, so nothing bespoke). See here:
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest...
Download the paper here: (well if you access from a university you can get it.... Erm, nudge nudge wink wink...PM)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
DP arrived only a couple of posts after Otis posted this, was it to deflect attention form it??New paper published claiming Atmospheric CO2 lags changes in land and sea temperature (Done using all the usual and freely available temperature and CO2 records, so nothing bespoke). See here:
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest...
Download the paper here: (well if you access from a university you can get it.... Erm, nudge nudge wink wink...PM)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
But I do anyway and my hat is a rather tastefully wide brimmed black number from a bijou boutique near to Notre Dame.
There must be a generation of these naif types being pumped out of college these days
There will be more visiting here
We are probably a "task" on some tutor's list
"Go ruffle some dinosaurs"
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff