Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
mko9 said:
durbster said:
Jinx said:
durbster said:
I don't cite advocacy blogs because I don't need to, as explained in the post you replied to.
Skeptical Science is an advocacy blog created by John Cook (a cartoonist with a predilection for dressing in SS gear) (published papers available but maybe not for long )WUWT (The worlds most viewed site on global warming) was created by Anthony Watts a TV meteorologist - ( published papers available).
robinessex said:
Unlike you, who activley ignores them.
WUWT exists to provide comfort and talking points to a certain demographic, that's all. It's not a place to learn things, it's a place to have your bias confirmed. It has no merit beyond that.
None of which explains why jinx is telling me who runs the skeptical science website.
durbster said:
If you're accusing me of ignoring WUWT then yes, of course I do. It's a propaganda website, not a place for objective information. Good grief, surely that's obvious. It's like going to Breitbart to "educate yourself" about immigration!
WUWT exists to provide comfort and talking points to a certain demographic, that's all. It's not a place to learn things, it's a place to have your bias confirmed. It has no merit beyond that.
None of which explains why jinx is telling me who runs the skeptical science website.
Replace WUWT with SKS above.WUWT exists to provide comfort and talking points to a certain demographic, that's all. It's not a place to learn things, it's a place to have your bias confirmed. It has no merit beyond that.
None of which explains why jinx is telling me who runs the skeptical science website.
HTH
Jinx said:
LoonyTunes said:
I have been paid to build a wardrobe - it doesn't make me a qualified carpenter. 
No but it make you a professional one (assuming it wasn't from a kit).I can tell people that i'm a carpenter but the reality is i have no qualifications as i failed the course, as did anthony watts.
If you want a 'quality' result you emply a qualified carpenter.
Jinx said:
durbster said:
If you're accusing me of ignoring WUWT then yes, of course I do. It's a propaganda website, not a place for objective information. Good grief, surely that's obvious. It's like going to Breitbart to "educate yourself" about immigration!
WUWT exists to provide comfort and talking points to a certain demographic, that's all. It's not a place to learn things, it's a place to have your bias confirmed. It has no merit beyond that.
None of which explains why jinx is telling me who runs the skeptical science website.
Replace WUWT with SKS above.WUWT exists to provide comfort and talking points to a certain demographic, that's all. It's not a place to learn things, it's a place to have your bias confirmed. It has no merit beyond that.
None of which explains why jinx is telling me who runs the skeptical science website.
HTH
I don't read SKS (I can't, in fact, because it crashes my browser). I have never cited it. I don't need to because I can go to any normal science website. That's the pleasant thing about not trying to argue a fringe position that is not supported by any credible science resource.
If you reject AGW, then you are, unfortunately, entirely reliant on advocacy blogs, so you're reduced to desperately trying to justify its credibility.
durbster said:
Jinx said:
durbster said:
If you're accusing me of ignoring WUWT then yes, of course I do. It's a propaganda website, not a place for objective information. Good grief, surely that's obvious. It's like going to Breitbart to "educate yourself" about immigration!
WUWT exists to provide comfort and talking points to a certain demographic, that's all. It's not a place to learn things, it's a place to have your bias confirmed. It has no merit beyond that.
None of which explains why jinx is telling me who runs the skeptical science website.
Replace WUWT with SKS above.WUWT exists to provide comfort and talking points to a certain demographic, that's all. It's not a place to learn things, it's a place to have your bias confirmed. It has no merit beyond that.
None of which explains why jinx is telling me who runs the skeptical science website.
HTH
I don't read SKS (I can't, in fact, because it crashes my browser). I have never cited it. I don't need to because I can go to any normal science website. That's the pleasant thing about not trying to argue a fringe position that is not supported by any credible science resource.
If you reject AGW, then you are, unfortunately, entirely reliant on advocacy blogs, so you're reduced to desperately trying to justify its credibility.
LoonyTunes said:
Jinx said:
LoonyTunes said:
I have been paid to build a wardrobe - it doesn't make me a qualified carpenter.
No but it make you a professional one (assuming it wasn't from a kit).I can tell people that i'm a carpenter but the reality is i have no qualifications as i failed the course, as did anthony watts.
If you want a 'quality' result you emply a qualified carpenter.
The Titanic was built by professionals
PS. I an amateur. I’ve totally refurbished a flat and a bungalow for my step daughter in the past, as well as my own property. A couple of the ‘professionals’ who did some work, said they’d never employ me, because I was too fussy and wanted perfection !!!
LoonyTunes said:
Except many thousands of scientists say they have proof of AGW but not one says he can find any proof of either Noah or Watts qualifications.
Which, strangely enough, deniers dont seem able to prove either
But hey, lets quote him as an expert anyway
But it is impossible to have proof of AGW, just as its impossible to disprove it, its far to complicated to make such statements. Which, strangely enough, deniers dont seem able to prove either
But hey, lets quote him as an expert anyway
t, different thread.durbster said:
Blimey, how much simpler can I make this?
I don't read SKS (I can't, in fact, because it crashes my browser). I have never cited it. I don't need to because I can go to any normal science website. That's the pleasant thing about not trying to argue a fringe position that is not supported by any credible science resource.
If you reject AGW, then you are, unfortunately, entirely reliant on advocacy blogs, so you're reduced to desperately trying to justify its credibility.
I don't read SKS (I can't, in fact, because it crashes my browser). I have never cited it. I don't need to because I can go to any normal science website. That's the pleasant thing about not trying to argue a fringe position that is not supported by any credible science resource.
If you reject AGW, then you are, unfortunately, entirely reliant on advocacy blogs, so you're reduced to desperately trying to justify its credibility.
Durbster said:
It always makes me laugh when somebody who rejects the science complains about sites like skeptical science.
If you don't like skeptical science, you can simply get your information from the source of any of the data involved, any group researching climate change, or any general science magazines and websites.
Or basically any source that has credible scientific credentials because not a single one of them rejects the science of climate change.
The only people relying exclusively on a tiny collection of fringe advocacy blogs are those who reject the science, like yourself.
If you don't like skeptical science, you can simply get your information from the source of any of the data involved, any group researching climate change, or any general science magazines and websites.
Or basically any source that has credible scientific credentials because not a single one of them rejects the science of climate change.
The only people relying exclusively on a tiny collection of fringe advocacy blogs are those who reject the science, like yourself.
Jinx said:
durbster said:
Blimey, how much simpler can I make this?
I don't read SKS (I can't, in fact, because it crashes my browser). I have never cited it. I don't need to because I can go to any normal science website. That's the pleasant thing about not trying to argue a fringe position that is not supported by any credible science resource.
If you reject AGW, then you are, unfortunately, entirely reliant on advocacy blogs, so you're reduced to desperately trying to justify its credibility.
I don't read SKS (I can't, in fact, because it crashes my browser). I have never cited it. I don't need to because I can go to any normal science website. That's the pleasant thing about not trying to argue a fringe position that is not supported by any credible science resource.
If you reject AGW, then you are, unfortunately, entirely reliant on advocacy blogs, so you're reduced to desperately trying to justify its credibility.
Durbster said:
It always makes me laugh when somebody who rejects the science complains about sites like skeptical science.
If you don't like skeptical science, you can simply get your information from the source of any of the data involved, any group researching climate change, or any general science magazines and websites.
Or basically any source that has credible scientific credentials because not a single one of them rejects the science of climate change.
The only people relying exclusively on a tiny collection of fringe advocacy blogs are those who reject the science, like yourself.
If you don't like skeptical science, you can simply get your information from the source of any of the data involved, any group researching climate change, or any general science magazines and websites.
Or basically any source that has credible scientific credentials because not a single one of them rejects the science of climate change.
The only people relying exclusively on a tiny collection of fringe advocacy blogs are those who reject the science, like yourself.
LoonyTunes said:
Correct. The answer is No it doesnt make me a carpenter.
I can tell people that i'm a carpenter but the reality is i have no qualifications as i failed the course, as did anthony watts.
If you want a 'quality' result you emply a qualified carpenter.
I'm starting to get a grasp of your mindset... You can't do anything unless someone has given you a bit of paper that says you can. Did you ever consider where qualifications came from in the first place? Did you ever consider what happens when this process is corrupt (think guild law)? I can tell people that i'm a carpenter but the reality is i have no qualifications as i failed the course, as did anthony watts.
If you want a 'quality' result you emply a qualified carpenter.
Qualified and Quality are not dependent terms. Skilled and Quality tend to be. I'd rather hire a skilled carpenter than a qualified one.
durbster said:
If you still don't understand the point being made here, I simply don't know how to write it in a simpler way and can't help you.
Whilst on the surface you are claiming that as you can look at the source of the science rather than relying on advocacy blogs but by phrasing the "complain about SKS" [paraphrase] when all it's doing is showing the science that you can get direct from the sources [/paraphrase] you are implying a whole different point.I was suggesting that WUWT is not dissimilar given as it frequently provides links back to the science (ergo both are advocacy blogs - though one is vastly more popular - maybe having an ex-TV meteorologist helps with the ratings) .
Of course given the nature (pun intended) of science theses days it is hard to know when stuff is published and get to the source paper outside of academia (getting hold of more the the puff piece press release takes effort). Not all of us have free access to journals.
Jinx said:
LoonyTunes said:
Correct. The answer is No it doesnt make me a carpenter.
I can tell people that i'm a carpenter but the reality is i have no qualifications as i failed the course, as did anthony watts.
If you want a 'quality' result you employ a qualified carpenter.
I'm starting to get a grasp of your mindset... You can't do anything unless someone has given you a bit of paper that says you can. Did you ever consider where qualifications came from in the first place? Did you ever consider what happens when this process is corrupt (think guild law)? I can tell people that i'm a carpenter but the reality is i have no qualifications as i failed the course, as did anthony watts.
If you want a 'quality' result you employ a qualified carpenter.
Qualified and Quality are not dependent terms. Skilled and Quality tend to be. I'd rather hire a skilled carpenter than a qualified one.
I'm starting to get an inkling of your mindset and frankly it doesn't surprise me.
You'll apparently accept anyone who's sat in a classroom for half an hour as an independent expert giving them as much weight as somebody who has gone through a 4 or 5 year course and demonstrated an understanding of the subject by passing stiff exams together with acceptable papers and course work.
I've attended more than a few classes in Theoretical Astrophysics and let me tell you that there isn't anybody going to employ me as such anytime soon - nor be quoting me.
Although clearly if I start a blog decrying AGW my chances of employment or being quoted as a Theoretical Astrophysicist by deniers in AGW increase 1000 fold
LoonyTunes said:
Jinx said:
LoonyTunes said:
Correct. The answer is No it doesnt make me a carpenter.
I can tell people that i'm a carpenter but the reality is i have no qualifications as i failed the course, as did anthony watts.
If you want a 'quality' result you employ a qualified carpenter.
I'm starting to get a grasp of your mindset... You can't do anything unless someone has given you a bit of paper that says you can. Did you ever consider where qualifications came from in the first place? Did you ever consider what happens when this process is corrupt (think guild law)? I can tell people that i'm a carpenter but the reality is i have no qualifications as i failed the course, as did anthony watts.
If you want a 'quality' result you employ a qualified carpenter.
Qualified and Quality are not dependent terms. Skilled and Quality tend to be. I'd rather hire a skilled carpenter than a qualified one.
I'm starting to get an inkling of your mindset and frankly it doesn't surprise me.
You'll apparently accept anyone who's sat in a classroom for half an hour as an independent expert giving them as much weight as somebody who has gone through a 4 or 5 year course and demonstrated an understanding of the subject by passing stiff exams together with acceptable papers and course work.
I've attended more than a few classes in Theoretical Astrophysics and let me tell you that there isn't anybody going to employ me as such anytime soon - nor be quoting me.
Although clearly if I start a blog decrying AGW my chances of employment or being quoted as a Theoretical Astrophysicist by deniers in AGW increase 1000 fold
We have asked you before to give an example of how one would obtain relevant qualifications to pass the official LT approved list of whatever...
You never provided that. Instead you basically say that anyone who may have had any 10th hand association with Heartland or big oil, can't be accepted as having any valid opinion or knowledge.
LoonyTunes said:
And now you're suggesting that the qualifications received by Scientists working on Climate Science are corrupt.
I'm starting to get an inkling of your mindset and frankly it doesn't surprise me.
You'll apparently accept anyone who's sat in a classroom for half an hour as an independent expert giving them as much weight as somebody who has gone through a 4 or 5 year course and demonstrated an understanding of the subject by passing stiff exams together with acceptable papers and course work.
I've attended more than a few classes in Theoretical Astrophysics and let me tell you that there isn't anybody going to employ me as such anytime soon - nor be quoting me.
Although clearly if I start a blog decrying AGW my chances of employment or being quoted as a Theoretical Astrophysicist by deniers in AGW increase 1000 fold
Wow LT - again you fail to comprehend what has been written. Demonstrable v paper qualification - which is more important? I'm starting to get an inkling of your mindset and frankly it doesn't surprise me.
You'll apparently accept anyone who's sat in a classroom for half an hour as an independent expert giving them as much weight as somebody who has gone through a 4 or 5 year course and demonstrated an understanding of the subject by passing stiff exams together with acceptable papers and course work.
I've attended more than a few classes in Theoretical Astrophysics and let me tell you that there isn't anybody going to employ me as such anytime soon - nor be quoting me.
Although clearly if I start a blog decrying AGW my chances of employment or being quoted as a Theoretical Astrophysicist by deniers in AGW increase 1000 fold
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff