Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
Ali G said:
Kawasicki said:
AreOut said:
mko9 said:
What if they believe in the sky fairy and also believe in man made global warming, does that invalidate the theory too?
you mean like a pope?
t in the woods? Could be bears 'though.
t on ice ........ as there's still plenty of it 
LoonyTunes said:
I don't think he was talking about Weaver, he was questioning Ball's credibility. Weaver was simply the the man on the other side of the fence in that instance. To deflect to Weaver would sound a strawman alert.
Only if you really want to try to avoid considering what the origin of the vilification of a scientist by a politician might imply.But then I doubt you have bothered to check the circumstances and the discussion on the Science thread. Thus your own attempt at closing down the subject would seem to be the real deflection. But who cares - this is only a car forum in which on the non-religious can be right.
Of course that makes you and a number of others a minority in terms of potential global influencers. Unless, of course, you consider your religion to be more powerful at group manipulation than the others.
turbobloke said:
A new study from NASA glaciologist Jay Zwally confirms that Antarctic ice mass is increasing. NASA? 
Something odd there. First Stephens shows there's no anthropogenic forcing signal visible in TOA radiative imbalance data (agw? what agw?) now Zwally breaks the ice myth (again) in the footsteps of Joughin & Tulaczyk, Wingham et al.
I'm not sure what this new study from Zwally is? The most recent I could find was 2015 so I assume you mean this one: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of... There's a letter in J. Glaciology (Aug 2016 - Journal of Glaciology -1(235):1-3) too: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307522296... Something odd there. First Stephens shows there's no anthropogenic forcing signal visible in TOA radiative imbalance data (agw? what agw?) now Zwally breaks the ice myth (again) in the footsteps of Joughin & Tulaczyk, Wingham et al.In any case, there's an interesting write up by Scientific American on the Zwally paper (and others); it's interesting in that it synthesises findings from a number of different studies, not just those limited to the east/west Antarctic (here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-to...
Quote from the report (about half-way down): "Zwally's 2015 study—though scientifically sound—is an outlier cherry-picked by conservative news outlets to advance their denialist positions." Provocative, certainly. Of course, that's not to say Zwally and his colleagues aren't correct but presenting findings from the (2015) Zwally paper as settled is a little misleading given the ongoing debate in this area e.g. Scambos and Shuman (2016) - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301825903... etc.
Classic turbobloke. Appeals to his own authority, misrepresentation of data, cherrypick some graphs, spam the thread with unreliable information, create propaganda for his 4 followers to latch on to.
Then they wonder how the scientific community “are getting away with it”
It’s all a sinister project to control the population.
Step out of the cult, you’re being brainwashed.
Then they wonder how the scientific community “are getting away with it”
It’s all a sinister project to control the population.
Step out of the cult, you’re being brainwashed.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/12/the-debate-mann...
Definitely more interesting than some of the drivel being posted currently.
Definitely more interesting than some of the drivel being posted currently.
Typical of me to focus on empirical data, sure.
Apart from the usual 'shoot the messenger' irrelevant personal angle bullshine which is even more boring and toothless with endless repetition, what empirical data can you link to or post that supports your fairytale climate view? Clue for the clueless: none at all, none exists.
NASA and NOAA are far less on-side than suggested by your previous irrelevant appeals to authority. In reality, there are non-activist senior scientists publishing a lot of data that you and others with faith can't cope with.
Carbon dioxide is still impotent. Keep up the good work advertising this failure
Apart from the usual 'shoot the messenger' irrelevant personal angle bullshine which is even more boring and toothless with endless repetition, what empirical data can you link to or post that supports your fairytale climate view? Clue for the clueless: none at all, none exists.
NASA and NOAA are far less on-side than suggested by your previous irrelevant appeals to authority. In reality, there are non-activist senior scientists publishing a lot of data that you and others with faith can't cope with.
Carbon dioxide is still impotent. Keep up the good work advertising this failure
Ali G said:
Isn't JC a gem. Most of us will remember this:"Judith Curry retires, citing 'craziness' of (agw) climate science" and "the poisonous nature of the scientific discussion around human-caused global warming".
As seen on PH there's also a lot of toxic waste from non-scientific non-discussion courtesy of believers with nothing else to offer.
LongQ said:
LoonyTunes said:
I don't think he was talking about Weaver, he was questioning Ball's credibility. Weaver was simply the the man on the other side of the fence in that instance. To deflect to Weaver would sound a strawman alert.
Only if you really want to try to avoid considering what the origin of the vilification of a scientist by a politician might imply.But then I doubt you have bothered to check the circumstances and the discussion on the Science thread. Thus your own attempt at closing down the subject would seem to be the real deflection. But who cares - this is only a car forum in which on the non-religious can be right.
Of course that makes you and a number of others a minority in terms of potential global influencers. Unless, of course, you consider your religion to be more powerful at group manipulation than the others.
What's your opinion of Dr T Ball and creationism? And please don't swing it back to Weaver.
turbobloke said:
Ali G said:
Isn't JC a gem. Most of us will remember this:"Judith Curry retires, citing 'craziness' of (agw) climate science" and "the poisonous nature of the scientific discussion around human-caused global warming".
As seen on PH there's also a lot of toxic waste from non-scientific non-discussion courtesy of believers with nothing else to offer.
LoonyTunes said:
That's yet more deflection - his point was that Dr T Ball is fatally flawed below the waterline. And Ball's thinking that evolution should be given only the same amount of weight as creationism makes that true.
What's your opinion of Dr T Ball and creationism? And please don't swing it back to Weaver.
How do you feel about Isaac Newton's? Does his belief in God as a masterful creator make him "flawed below the waterline"?What's your opinion of Dr T Ball and creationism? And please don't swing it back to Weaver.
Jinx said:
LoonyTunes said:
That's yet more deflection - his point was that Dr T Ball is fatally flawed below the waterline. And Ball's thinking that evolution should be given only the same amount of weight as creationism makes that true.
What's your opinion of Dr T Ball and creationism? And please don't swing it back to Weaver.
How do you feel about Isaac Newton's? Does his belief in God as a masterful creator make him "flawed below the waterline"?What's your opinion of Dr T Ball and creationism? And please don't swing it back to Weaver.
There are also flaws in Darwin's theory of evolution - not creationist bad - but still much to be learned.
Jinx said:
LoonyTunes said:
That's yet more deflection - his point was that Dr T Ball is fatally flawed below the waterline. And Ball's thinking that evolution should be given only the same amount of weight as creationism makes that true.
What's your opinion of Dr T Ball and creationism? And please don't swing it back to Weaver.
How do you feel about Isaac Newton's? Does his belief in God as a masterful creator make him "flawed below the waterline"?What's your opinion of Dr T Ball and creationism? And please don't swing it back to Weaver.
PRTVR said:
Jinx said:
LoonyTunes said:
That's yet more deflection - his point was that Dr T Ball is fatally flawed below the waterline. And Ball's thinking that evolution should be given only the same amount of weight as creationism makes that true.
What's your opinion of Dr T Ball and creationism? And please don't swing it back to Weaver.
How do you feel about Isaac Newton's? Does his belief in God as a masterful creator make him "flawed below the waterline"?What's your opinion of Dr T Ball and creationism? And please don't swing it back to Weaver.
I wouldn't want him teaching any of the sciences to my children when he thinks religious knowledge is every bit as valid as science.
Why does it not surprise me that on here that's a valid view ?turbobloke said:
Typical of me to focus on empirical data, sure.
Typical of you to misrepresent data - yep.turbobloke said:
Apart from the usual 'shoot the messenger' irrelevant personal angle bullshine which is even more boring and toothless with endless repetition, what empirical data can you link to or post that supports your fairytale climate view? Clue for the clueless: none at all, none exists.
NASA and NOAA are far less on-side than suggested by your previous irrelevant appeals to authority. In reality, there are non-activist senior scientists publishing a lot of data that you and others with faith can't cope with.
Carbon dioxide is still impotent. Keep up the good work advertising this failure
Presumably you're referring again to Stephens et al whose work you descibe as showing AGW doesn't exist. A mighty big claim, but of course it's the usual misleading turbo-spin from yourself. Stephens' work doesn't say that at all.NASA and NOAA are far less on-side than suggested by your previous irrelevant appeals to authority. In reality, there are non-activist senior scientists publishing a lot of data that you and others with faith can't cope with.
Carbon dioxide is still impotent. Keep up the good work advertising this failure
LoonyTunes said:
We're not talking about 1687, we're talking about today.
I wouldn't want him teaching any of the sciences to my children when he thinks religious knowledge is every bit as valid as science.
Why does it not surprise me that on here that's a valid view ?
Because we are rational and logical and judge arguments on their merits whilst you are emotional and illogical and only able to judge arguments based on your opinion of the person putting forth the argument?I wouldn't want him teaching any of the sciences to my children when he thinks religious knowledge is every bit as valid as science.
Why does it not surprise me that on here that's a valid view ?Jinx said:
LoonyTunes said:
We're not talking about 1687, we're talking about today.
I wouldn't want him teaching any of the sciences to my children when he thinks religious knowledge is every bit as valid as science.
Why does it not surprise me that on here that's a valid view ?
Because we are rational and logical and judge arguments on their merits whilst you are emotional and illogical and only able to judge arguments based on your opinion of the person putting forth the argument?I wouldn't want him teaching any of the sciences to my children when he thinks religious knowledge is every bit as valid as science.
Why does it not surprise me that on here that's a valid view ?
Jinx said:
LoonyTunes said:
We're not talking about 1687, we're talking about today.
I wouldn't want him teaching any of the sciences to my children when he thinks religious knowledge is every bit as valid as science.
Why does it not surprise me that on here that's a valid view ?
Because we are rational and logical and judge arguments on their merits whilst you are emotional and illogical and only able to judge arguments based on your opinion of the person putting forth the argument?I wouldn't want him teaching any of the sciences to my children when he thinks religious knowledge is every bit as valid as science.
Why does it not surprise me that on here that's a valid view ?Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 10th July 10:47
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
Jinx said:
LoonyTunes said:
That's yet more deflection - his point was that Dr T Ball is fatally flawed below the waterline. And Ball's thinking that evolution should be given only the same amount of weight as creationism makes that true.
What's your opinion of Dr T Ball and creationism? And please don't swing it back to Weaver.
How do you feel about Isaac Newton's? Does his belief in God as a masterful creator make him "flawed below the waterline"?What's your opinion of Dr T Ball and creationism? And please don't swing it back to Weaver.
Not that all opinions are allowed to be expressed without severe repercussions in certain areas of scientific enquiry.
Professor Lennart Bengtsson on resigining from the GWPF scientist panel after being subjected to McCarthy style pressure from scientists behaving as thugs said:
I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that it has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety.
Bill Gray a climatologist at Colorado State University said:
There's a lot of chicanery involved with pushing this global warming business. We (climate heretics who don't truly believe in the doctrine of agw) are persona non grata in a lot of circles. I've been told I'm no longer a credible scientist and I've lost grants.
Professor Stott on AGW heresy said:
There are many more scientists who think the way I do...But they don’t want to stick their heads above the parapet. They don’t want to lose their jobs.
The scientific way is to take the approach seen by many climate realists in this thread and beyond - ignore opinion (RS: nullius in verba) and examine empirical data. El s and others can't cope with that, a good sign...not that one is needed. They revert to appeals to activism, appeals to non-consensus, and ad homs as evidenced by this thread on repeated occasions.In the past science used to work that way with primacy afforded to empirical data, including in climate science until the latter was suborned by unscientific approaches based on opinion - irony strikes again - and the degree to which it's forced (no pun intended).
Presumably those with opinions on opinions will have an opinion on this opinion from a former head honcho of the IPCC, a Brit to boot. Former Head of IPCC Sir John Houghton has opined that climate change is a moral issue and that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions will contribute powerfully to the material salvation of the planet from mankind's greed and indifference.
Clearly we must repent and believe and pay the tax!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff