Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
LoonyTunes said:
And here's where you're lack of understanding REALLY shows.
This is the politics thread - the Science thread is over there --->
If you can't understand that what hope have you got with AGW.
How does this reflect my understanding of the topic? I don't follow - although it's clear you're the kind of person who can take that giant leap without evidence. This is the politics thread - the Science thread is over there --->
If you can't understand that what hope have you got with AGW.
So do you have something constructive to add to this thread? I'm keen to understand how you've come to your views. Do you have a background in science? Are you qualified in related subjects? Have experience in research, politics or economics? I would honestly love to know as you've yet to contribute anything of value here.
Naively beating the drum for the official line without entertaining discussion and creating 'denier' lists isn't really what normal people do (although I realise our politicians haven't exactly set a good example here).
fakenews said:
LoonyTunes said:
And here's where you're lack of understanding REALLY shows.
This is the politics thread - the Science thread is over there --->
If you can't understand that what hope have you got with AGW.
How does this reflect my understanding of the topic? I don't follow - although it's clear you're the kind of person who can take that giant leap without evidence. This is the politics thread - the Science thread is over there --->
If you can't understand that what hope have you got with AGW.
So do you have something constructive to add to this thread? I'm keen to understand how you've come to your views. Do you have a background in science? Are you qualified in related subjects? Have experience in research, politics or economics? I would honestly love to know as you've yet to contribute anything of value here.
Naively beating the drum for the official line without entertaining discussion and creating 'denier' lists isn't really what normal people do (although I realise our politicians haven't exactly set a good example here).
He denies(lol) he can only post appeals to authority, yet it's what he does every day.
I notice he doesn't seem to post much in the science thread, just the politics one.
Maybe he's a politician? It would explain the complete BS he posts.
robinessex said:
LoonyTunes said:
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
I never mentioned the word conspiracy. I just look at all the stuff being done my in the name of saving the planet, and then the money pouring into this. Lovely gravy train for many..
That’s a conspiracy. 
fakenews said:
Do you have a background in science? Are you qualified in related subjects? Have experience in research, politics or economics? I would honestly love to know as you've yet to contribute anything of value here.
Unfortunately we’ve gone down the employment and academic qualifications route many times, it never goes well for you deniers. The problem is also that you deniers are going against pretty much the entire scientific community over AGW so it’s unlikely you’re right and you have no (consensus changing proof) apart from political blogs. That’s why nobody takes you seriously.
LT has posted many lists of the scientific institutions that disagree with you. Those are the people you need to prove wrong. You’re not going to do that by churning out tired old political dogma.
He also points out this is the politics thread. None of the climate cult posts in the scientific thread because they don’t anything about science and can’t disprove the scientific consensus so they stick to theories about global conspiracy involving wealth redistribution, taxation and scientists on the take.
stew-STR160 said:
His only qualification is spamming us with lists of political institutions or other such.
Yeah those political institutions! What do they know. 
That’s not spam. It’s pointing out the complete disparity in the argument. On one side there’s the scientific community made up of respected scientists and that list of respected political institutions creating a scientific consensus.
On the other side there’s fringe scientists and political advocacy blogs and you lot on here.
The list ought to make you sit back and think.
Why do you think all those political institutions disagree with you? Where’s your list of political institutions that support your position?
fakenews said:
How does this reflect my understanding of the topic? I don't follow...
No, clearly fakenews said:
So do you have something constructive to add to this thread?
I do every day by highlighting your warped ideas and showing you who you have to disagree with to believe those ideas.fakenews said:
I'm keen to understand how you've come to your views. Do you have a background in science? Are you qualified in related subjects? Have experience in research, politics or economics? I would honestly love to know as you've yet to contribute anything of value here.
My qualifications are not relevant as I don't disagree with the absolutely overwhelming amount Scientists globally about this.You however do - so it's your credentials to argue with them that are the more pertinent point...which are? They must be astonishing for you to grasp and peer review all of the monthly papers published on the subject.
fakenews said:
Naively beating the drum for the official line without entertaining discussion and creating 'denier' lists isn't really what normal people do (although I realise our politicians haven't exactly set a good example here).
I haven't created a denier list 
We all know who the deniers are. Your understanding of simple posts is rather rum for someone who claims to know better than all of those Scientific Institutions.LoonyTunes said:
Wow, you need inducting immediately fakenews, congratulations!
Deniers who think it's all a global conspiracy
1. Robinessex (who also believes the scientific consensus on AGW is only 6%) Vol 5 page 65
2. Jinx Vol 5 page 67
3. fakenews Vol 5 page 69
You are more than welcome to add me to the list as well. The fact that the climate is changing is completely indisputable, mankind's influence on it? Tenous at best. In fact I consider the real "deniers" (god that's a sDeniers who think it's all a global conspiracy
1. Robinessex (who also believes the scientific consensus on AGW is only 6%) Vol 5 page 65
2. Jinx Vol 5 page 67
3. fakenews Vol 5 page 69
t term) to be the ones who suggest we can make the climate "stable", when it hasn't been at any point in the Earth's history. But then I'm sure you have some sort of "consensus" argument to come back with, even though consensus isn't really valid scientific proof. It's the sort of argument put forward by idiots who can ever think that science can be "settled", or that garbage computer models that can't even predict the past, are somehow a replacement for cold hard (non-adjusted) data. stew-STR160 said:
He denies(lol) he can only post appeals to authority, yet it's what he does every day.
Smarten up and try to learn what an appeal to authority is 
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authori...
"It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus."
https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2011/09/01/logic...
"Scientific Consensus: NOT An Argument from Authority:
In contrast, the scientific consensus is not an argument from authority. There are a couple of ways to think about this. The most basic and concise is that the scientific consensus is not based on an individual’s or small group’s credibility."
How many times do you lot telling about this? No wonder you don't listen to the Scientists.
LoonyTunes said:
You don't need to actually use the word 'conspiracy' you just have to infer it.
I appreciate that using the word 'conspiracy' makes you (or anyone) feel like everybody must be looking at you and thinking "what a loon" but I'm afraid that's the bed you've made yourself when you hint that they are 'all in it together' for either the funding or for fear of upsetting the apple cart in one way or another.
you have been told before there is no conspiracy required. here is a good article that explains the issues facing modern science very well. i trust you will be happy with the source ?I appreciate that using the word 'conspiracy' makes you (or anyone) feel like everybody must be looking at you and thinking "what a loon" but I'm afraid that's the bed you've made yourself when you hint that they are 'all in it together' for either the funding or for fear of upsetting the apple cart in one way or another.
At the risk of oversimplifying a complex historical process, we think the strongest force pushing science (and statistics) in the wrong direction is existential: science has become a career, rather than a calling, while quality control mechanisms have not kept pace.
https://www.significancemagazine.com/2-uncategoris...
LoonyTunes said:
Smarten up and try to learn what an appeal to authority is
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authori...
"It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus."
https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2011/09/01/logic...
"Scientific Consensus: NOT An Argument from Authority:
In contrast, the scientific consensus is not an argument from authority. There are a couple of ways to think about this. The most basic and concise is that the scientific consensus is not based on an individual’s or small group’s credibility."
How many times do you lot telling about this? No wonder you don't listen to the Scientists.
Big difference between a Scientific Consensus and a Consensus of Scientists only the weak minded confuse the two.https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authori...
"It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus."
https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2011/09/01/logic...
"Scientific Consensus: NOT An Argument from Authority:
In contrast, the scientific consensus is not an argument from authority. There are a couple of ways to think about this. The most basic and concise is that the scientific consensus is not based on an individual’s or small group’s credibility."
How many times do you lot telling about this? No wonder you don't listen to the Scientists.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
how about proving your understanding is superior, you attack his credibility, yet provide no proof of yours. Come on, put up or shut up.
he won't bite, knows you have him beat in the qualifications stakes. i am surprised though, gadgetloonymactunes likes lists. maybe he only likes it when his list is the longest. wc98 said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
how about proving your understanding is superior, you attack his credibility, yet provide no proof of yours. Come on, put up or shut up.
he won't bite, knows you have him beat in the qualifications stakes. i am surprised though, gadgetloonymactunes likes lists. maybe he only likes it when his list is the longest. With This Staff said:
Politicians could have sponsored some Red Team exercises to ensure (C)AGW was robust.
They have chosen not to.
Hence all academic establishments involved in (C)AGW research assume it is robust and are funded on that basis too.
if all major western governments switched the majority of the funding to investigating other possible causes of global warming the grant applications would continue from the same people. not a surprise, they can only investigate what they are being paid to investigate. that is why it is usually amateur sceptics that find mistakes in cagw papers,methods or practices.They have chosen not to.
Hence all academic establishments involved in (C)AGW research assume it is robust and are funded on that basis too.
LoonyTunes said:
No personal insult...well...not unless I'm insulted first. 
I could shoot them all down in flames but once I've taken out the majority in 1 fell swoop the whole credibility of the post falls apart. Like a list of TurboBlokes quotes
I mean, quoting The Heartland Institute as your defence of Willie Wei-Hock Soon
As such, here endeth my interest in Jinx's post.
Where else would you like a defence to be posted?I could shoot them all down in flames but once I've taken out the majority in 1 fell swoop the whole credibility of the post falls apart. Like a list of TurboBlokes quotes
I mean, quoting The Heartland Institute as your defence of Willie Wei-Hock Soon
As such, here endeth my interest in Jinx's post.
Can you actually refute any of the information on Willie Soon on the link or are you just another knee-jerk CAGW advocate with no ability to think for themselves?
wc98 said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
how about proving your understanding is superior, you attack his credibility, yet provide no proof of yours. Come on, put up or shut up.
he won't bite, knows you have him beat in the qualifications stakes. i am surprised though, gadgetloonymactunes likes lists. maybe he only likes it when his list is the longest. wc98 said:
LoonyTunes said:
You don't need to actually use the word 'conspiracy' you just have to infer it.
I appreciate that using the word 'conspiracy' makes you (or anyone) feel like everybody must be looking at you and thinking "what a loon" but I'm afraid that's the bed you've made yourself when you hint that they are 'all in it together' for either the funding or for fear of upsetting the apple cart in one way or another.
you have been told before there is no conspiracy required. here is a good article that explains the issues facing modern science very well. i trust you will be happy with the source ?I appreciate that using the word 'conspiracy' makes you (or anyone) feel like everybody must be looking at you and thinking "what a loon" but I'm afraid that's the bed you've made yourself when you hint that they are 'all in it together' for either the funding or for fear of upsetting the apple cart in one way or another.
At the risk of oversimplifying a complex historical process, we think the strongest force pushing science (and statistics) in the wrong direction is existential: science has become a career, rather than a calling, while quality control mechanisms have not kept pace.
https://www.significancemagazine.com/2-uncategoris...
.......nowhere does he talk about Climate Science in particular. Indeed he sees benefits for other areas and mentions them rather than mentioning Climate Science. Which would be strange if he were taking aim Climate Evidence as it's a far more pressing issue than those he does mention.
"Statisticians are pointing out biases inherent in “big data” and machine-learning approaches to social issues, such as predictive policing. They could also work with economists to monitor new forms of exploitation of intellectual labour now that new modes of working can be exploited in old ways.
We statisticians can support initiatives such as the Reproducibility Project, the Meta-research Innovation Center, the EQUATOR network, alltrials.net, retractionwatch.com, and others that aim to improve quality and ethics in science, and hold scientists accountable for sloppy, disingenuous, or fraudulent work."
When he starts in on the Climate Scientists please update me.
Lets also not forget he's a Statistician and not a Climate Scientist so I don't expect him to question Climate Change - and indeed he didn't.
Perhaps you could drop him an email asking for his position on Climate Science data? Might be worth reading as a side bar.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff