Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
Jinx said:
El stovey said:
Bit vague and elusive as usual. Possibly to do with numbers though, could be a boffin, maybe even a scientist or an engineer, maybe not. 
Open forums are not really the place to discuss professional roles. Lets just say I work with lots of data some of which is highly relevant to the area we are discussing.Diderot said:
Show me where I claimed I was a scientist.
And while we’re on the subject of jobs, what kind of illustrious career do you enjoy?
As you know, his job isn’t relevant as he’s not the one saying he’s right and the scientific community and every scientific institution on earth are wrong. And while we’re on the subject of jobs, what kind of illustrious career do you enjoy?
That’s what you’re saying so it’s reasonable to ask how you are qualified to make such statements. Obviously you’re not, that’s why you, like your other sceptics are always so elusive (at best) about their expertise.
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
Show me where I claimed I was a scientist.
And while we’re on the subject of jobs, what kind of illustrious career do you enjoy?
As you know, his job isn’t relevant as he’s not the one saying he’s right and the scientific community and every scientific institution on earth are wrong. And while we’re on the subject of jobs, what kind of illustrious career do you enjoy?
That’s what you’re saying so it’s reasonable to ask how you are qualified to make such statements. Obviously you’re not, that’s why you, like your other sceptics are always so elusive (at best) about their expertise.
wc98 said:
Diderot said:
Show me where I claimed I was a scientist.
And while we’re on the subject of jobs, what kind of illustrious career do you enjoy?
gadgy doesn't answer questions, only demands answers to his own. you could probably make a good guess though And while we’re on the subject of jobs, what kind of illustrious career do you enjoy?
You however, much less chance.
El stovey said:
As you know, his job isn’t relevant as he’s not the one saying he’s right and the scientific community and every scientific institution on earth are wrong.
That’s what you’re saying so it’s reasonable to ask how you are qualified to make such statements. Obviously you’re not, that’s why you, like your other sceptics are always so elusive (at best) about their expertise.
Allowing arguments to stand on their own merits rather than the "look at my qualifications" modus operandi requested above is surely the better form of discussion? That’s what you’re saying so it’s reasonable to ask how you are qualified to make such statements. Obviously you’re not, that’s why you, like your other sceptics are always so elusive (at best) about their expertise.
Or they've seen what happened to Prof. Peter Ridd and value their employment.
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
Show me where I claimed I was a scientist.
And while we’re on the subject of jobs, what kind of illustrious career do you enjoy?
No. Let's go back to the question your been refusing to answer for months first.And while we’re on the subject of jobs, what kind of illustrious career do you enjoy?
This is my last attempt after which I won't be replying to any questions you specifically put to me.
What is the issue between the RS and TATA that you keep alluding too but never explain???
Jinx said:
El stovey said:
As you know, his job isn’t relevant as he’s not the one saying he’s right and the scientific community and every scientific institution on earth are wrong.
That’s what you’re saying so it’s reasonable to ask how you are qualified to make such statements. Obviously you’re not, that’s why you, like your other sceptics are always so elusive (at best) about their expertise.
Allowing arguments to stand on their own merits rather than the "look at my qualifications" modus operandi requested above is surely the better form of discussion? That’s what you’re saying so it’s reasonable to ask how you are qualified to make such statements. Obviously you’re not, that’s why you, like your other sceptics are always so elusive (at best) about their expertise.
You’d all make these appeals to authority if you had any authority on your side, but alas there are none.
El stovey said:
I’m afraid you fail on that basis also. That’s why you guys quote whatsupwiththat and the GWPF as evidence all the time.
You’d all make these appeals to authority if you had any authority on your side, but alas there are none.
You'll find I mainly provide links to the data (via woodfortrees) and other similar links and point out fallacies and other logic fails (one of which is argumentum ab auctoritate) .You’d all make these appeals to authority if you had any authority on your side, but alas there are none.
This isn't so much for the purpose of winning over contributors but for the passive readers of this thread who are willing to question the current CO2 GBoBTWBoBNT zeitgeist.
I'd suggest everyone does find the time to read the IPCC AR5 as the obvious disconnect from the science to the executive summary is stark and at odds with a lot of the hysterical press releases. Then move onto Searching for the Catastrophe Signal and other books that give a good description of the political paradigm that created the IPCC in the first place.
Don't let them think for you and don't trust anyone who says they will do the "fact" checking for you.
El stovey said:
Jinx said:
El stovey said:
As you know, his job isn’t relevant as he’s not the one saying he’s right and the scientific community and every scientific institution on earth are wrong.
That’s what you’re saying so it’s reasonable to ask how you are qualified to make such statements. Obviously you’re not, that’s why you, like your other sceptics are always so elusive (at best) about their expertise.
Allowing arguments to stand on their own merits rather than the "look at my qualifications" modus operandi requested above is surely the better form of discussion? That’s what you’re saying so it’s reasonable to ask how you are qualified to make such statements. Obviously you’re not, that’s why you, like your other sceptics are always so elusive (at best) about their expertise.
You’d all make these appeals to authority if you had any authority on your side, but alas there are none.
Have you heard of Glaciergate Stovey?
robinessex said:
Isn't the man in the street allowed an opinion then?
Obviously especially as it’s a discussion forum but at the same time you have to expect those opinions to be treated with incredulity when they go against the scientific community and are based on nothing of any substance. Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
Show me where I claimed I was a scientist.
And while we’re on the subject of jobs, what kind of illustrious career do you enjoy?
No. Let's go back to the question your been refusing to answer for months first.And while we’re on the subject of jobs, what kind of illustrious career do you enjoy?
This is my last attempt after which I won't be replying to any questions you specifically put to me.
What is the issue between the RS and TATA that you keep alluding too but never explain???
A scientist? What a joke.
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
Show me where I claimed I was a scientist.
And while we’re on the subject of jobs, what kind of illustrious career do you enjoy?
No. Let's go back to the question your been refusing to answer for months first.And while we’re on the subject of jobs, what kind of illustrious career do you enjoy?
This is my last attempt after which I won't be replying to any questions you specifically put to me.
What is the issue between the RS and TATA that you keep alluding too but never explain???
A scientist? What a joke.
Jinx said:
El stovey said:
I’m afraid you fail on that basis also. That’s why you guys quote whatsupwiththat and the GWPF as evidence all the time.
You’d all make these appeals to authority if you had any authority on your side, but alas there are none.
You'll find I mainly provide links to the data (via woodfortrees) and other similar links and point out fallacies and other logic fails (one of which is argumentum ab auctoritate) .You’d all make these appeals to authority if you had any authority on your side, but alas there are none.
This isn't so much for the purpose of winning over contributors but for the passive readers of this thread who are willing to question the current CO2 GBoBTWBoBNT zeitgeist.
I'd suggest everyone does find the time to read the IPCC AR5 as the obvious disconnect from the science to the executive summary is stark and at odds with a lot of the hysterical press releases. Then move onto Searching for the Catastrophe Signal and other books that give a good description of the political paradigm that created the IPCC in the first place.
Don't let them think for you and don't trust anyone who says they will do the "fact" checking for you.
Leading Scientist Removes His Name from 'silly' and 'apocalyptic' Climate Change Document
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2014/03/25/climat...
dickymint said:
This is quite revealing...................
Leading Scientist Removes His Name from 'silly' and 'apocalyptic' Climate Change Document
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2014/03/25/climat...
Are you actually quoting breitbart? Leading Scientist Removes His Name from 'silly' and 'apocalyptic' Climate Change Document
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2014/03/25/climat...
El stovey said:
dickymint said:
This is quite revealing...................
Leading Scientist Removes His Name from 'silly' and 'apocalyptic' Climate Change Document
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2014/03/25/climat...
Are you actually quoting breitbart? Leading Scientist Removes His Name from 'silly' and 'apocalyptic' Climate Change Document
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2014/03/25/climat...
“You have a very silly statement in the draft summary that says that people who live in war-torn countries are more vulnerable to climate change, which is undoubtedly true.”
Undoubtedly true.
El stovey said:
dickymint said:
This is quite revealing...................
Leading Scientist Removes His Name from 'silly' and 'apocalyptic' Climate Change Document
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2014/03/25/climat...
Are you actually quoting breitbart? Leading Scientist Removes His Name from 'silly' and 'apocalyptic' Climate Change Document
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2014/03/25/climat...
Jinx said:
You'll find I mainly provide links to the data (via woodfortrees) and other similar links and point out fallacies and other logic fails (one of which is argumentum ab auctoritate) .
This isn't so much for the purpose of winning over contributors but for the passive readers of this thread who are willing to question the current CO2 GBoBTWBoBNT zeitgeist.
I'd suggest everyone does find the time to read the IPCC AR5 as the obvious disconnect from the science to the executive summary is stark and at odds with a lot of the hysterical press releases. Then move onto Searching for the Catastrophe Signal and other books that give a good description of the political paradigm that created the IPCC in the first place.
Don't let them think for you and don't trust anyone who says they will do the "fact" checking for you.
So that’s great, your job in “data” has empowered you to analyse data related to the subject and let you to conclude that the scientific community and scientific institutions have interpreted it wrongly or are lying about their findings? This isn't so much for the purpose of winning over contributors but for the passive readers of this thread who are willing to question the current CO2 GBoBTWBoBNT zeitgeist.
I'd suggest everyone does find the time to read the IPCC AR5 as the obvious disconnect from the science to the executive summary is stark and at odds with a lot of the hysterical press releases. Then move onto Searching for the Catastrophe Signal and other books that give a good description of the political paradigm that created the IPCC in the first place.
Don't let them think for you and don't trust anyone who says they will do the "fact" checking for you.
So have you done anything with this discovery of yours? It’s a pretty earth shattering discovery that you’ve made, could you do more with it than post about it here perhaps?
These revelations would change the scientific consensus, make you world famous and pretty much change the course of humanity.
I’m just finding it hard to understand how you know about all these travesties in science and politics happening but aren’t doing anything with your discovery?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff