Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[Gadgetmac]

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

Kawasicki said:

It’s warming gradually, new records aren’t in any way remarkable. More science, please.

Best say that to the doc. He's a creationist

Ad Homs? Pathetic.

More science, please.

Maybe but KP had just demonstrated that he's prepared to overlook the science/data when it doesn't suit and I've just demonstrated that it's a fault line he has in other areas of science/data too where he's prepared to overlook the whole fields of geology and astronomy to follow his beliefs.

[DocJock]

Are you going to apply the same standard to every 'scientist' of both sides of the argument that believes in a God or an afterlife?

After all, there is not one shred of evidence to support their beliefs, so their opinions must be disregarded as their judgement is unreliable,

[stew-STR160]

DocJock said:

Are you going to apply the same standard to every 'scientist' of both sides of the argument that believes in a God or an afterlife?

After all, there is not one shred of evidence to support their beliefs, so their opinions must be disregarded as their judgement is unreliable,

Gadget doesn't care about that. If they believe AGW and the scare stories, then they can do whatever they like. He's displayed this various times in the politics thread that it only requires faith in the consensus. But to argue against it requires some pseudo made up qualification that even Cal Tech(I think) only created last year...


And Gadget, you did mention a bet about November temp being a record, and I believe I responded that a continuing warming trend since the little ice age would result in such a November report as has just been published. Can't remember the exact details of the discussion and frankly can't be bothered to go looking for it, but it's just another blind faith thing for you.

[Gadgetmac]

DocJock said:

Are you going to apply the same standard to every 'scientist' of both sides of the argument that believes in a God or an afterlife?

After all, there is not one shred of evidence to support their beliefs, so their opinions must be disregarded as their judgement is unreliable,

Yep. The same standards apply to all. I will never quote somebody who believes in an afterlife or any other fanciful supernatural belief.

[Gadgetmac]

stew-STR160 said:

DocJock said:

Are you going to apply the same standard to every 'scientist' of both sides of the argument that believes in a God or an afterlife?

After all, there is not one shred of evidence to support their beliefs, so their opinions must be disregarded as their judgement is unreliable,

Gadget doesn't care about that. If they believe AGW and the scare stories, then they can do whatever they like. He's displayed this various times in the politics thread that it only requires faith in the consensus. But to argue against it requires some pseudo made up qualification that even Cal Tech(I think) only created last year...


And Gadget, you did mention a bet about November temp being a record, and I believe I responded that a continuing warming trend since the little ice age would result in such a November report as has just been published. Can't remember the exact details of the discussion and frankly can't be bothered to go looking for it, but it's just another blind faith thing for you.

As always stew you are wrong...on just about everything you said in that post. No surprise though.

I offered a bet on 2019 being one of the top 8 or 10 hottest years on record, nothing to do with November.

Do try and get something right.

[DocJock]

Gadgetmac said:

DocJock said:

Are you going to apply the same standard to every 'scientist' of both sides of the argument that believes in a God or an afterlife?

After all, there is not one shred of evidence to support their beliefs, so their opinions must be disregarded as their judgement is unreliable,

Yep. The same standards apply to all. I will never quote somebody who believes in an afterlife or any other fanciful supernatural belief.

We are in agreement then regarding standards.

But how do you know the religious beliefs of these '97% of scientists' you quote, or the members of the list of scientific institutions you love to use to support your view?

My point is, you ridicule one particular scientist for having a crackpot belief, but not a whole host of others. I too think religion is nonsense, but that doesn't necessarily stop believers from being good at their specialisms.

Would you, for example, say we should disregard the work of that crackpot Einstein? “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

[Gadgetmac]

DocJock said:

Gadgetmac said:

DocJock said:

Are you going to apply the same standard to every 'scientist' of both sides of the argument that believes in a God or an afterlife?

After all, there is not one shred of evidence to support their beliefs, so their opinions must be disregarded as their judgement is unreliable,

Yep. The same standards apply to all. I will never quote somebody who believes in an afterlife or any other fanciful supernatural belief.

We are in agreement then regarding standards.

But how do you know the religious beliefs of these '97% of scientists' you quote, or the members of the list of scientific institutions you love to use to support your view?

My point is, you ridicule one particular scientist for having a crackpot belief, but not a whole host of others. I too think religion is nonsense, but that doesn't necessarily stop believers from being good at their specialisms.

Would you, for example, say we should disregard the work of that crackpot Einstein? “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

Let's be clear here, are you saying that Einstein believed in God?

[DocJock]

Did I say that? Einstein often stated he did not have a personal God but was rather an advocate of Spinoza's.

He was however, accepting of people with daft beliefs still being credible scientists, as per my quote.

Anyway, I was only gently pulling your leg... I'll let you get back to teasing the easily wound up.

[stew-STR160]

Gadgetmac said:

stew-STR160 said:

DocJock said:

Are you going to apply the same standard to every 'scientist' of both sides of the argument that believes in a God or an afterlife?

After all, there is not one shred of evidence to support their beliefs, so their opinions must be disregarded as their judgement is unreliable,

Gadget doesn't care about that. If they believe AGW and the scare stories, then they can do whatever they like. He's displayed this various times in the politics thread that it only requires faith in the consensus. But to argue against it requires some pseudo made up qualification that even Cal Tech(I think) only created last year...


And Gadget, you did mention a bet about November temp being a record, and I believe I responded that a continuing warming trend since the little ice age would result in such a November report as has just been published. Can't remember the exact details of the discussion and frankly can't be bothered to go looking for it, but it's just another blind faith thing for you.

As always stew you are wrong...on just about everything you said in that post. No surprise though.

I offered a bet on 2019 being one of the top 8 or 10 hottest years on record, nothing to do with November.

Do try and get something right.

I found the post, and you're right, you did say 2019 being in the top ten, not November. But my response to that is as above and still stands.

[Halb]

Farage on BBC2 now, first question, climate change.

[Gadgetmac]

When the data is confirmed Stew it won't be blind faith matey.

Blind faith is what you'll be spewing out to try and debunk it.

[Gadgetmac]

Oh, quick update.

The WMO have just released a statement saying that 2019 had this far (Jan to Oct) been the second hottest on record.

Start spinning it into something else guys before the full years data comes in.

[stew-STR160]

Gadgetmac said:

When the data is confirmed Stew it won't be blind faith matey.

Blind faith is what you'll be spewing out to try and debunk it.

I'm pretty sure that's not how it works...

[anonymous-user]

Halb said:

Farage on BBC2 now, first question, climate change.

I missed some of it, he seems to agree with AGW science but thinks it’s pointless doing much in the U.K. as China aren’t doing enough?

[kerplunk]

DocJock said:

Are you going to apply the same standard to every 'scientist' of both sides of the argument that believes in a God or an afterlife?

After all, there is not one shred of evidence to support their beliefs, so their opinions must be disregarded as their judgement is unreliable,

I wouldn't apply it like that myself, but scientists signing 'evangelical declarations' that directly speak to their scientific specialism is a bit of a no-no in my book.

https://cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/evangelical-d...

In Dr Roy's defence, despite being a signatory, I don't think he believes everything said in the above eg the declaration says the recent warming is natural but I've seen him clearly state that he concurs with the IPCC attribution of recent warming, and he has no truck with greenhouse effect deniers.

[DocJock]

See my post of 08.14. I wouldn't apply it like that either and tend to agree with you, I was mildly yanking Gadgetmac's chain.

DocJock said:

He was however, accepting of people with daft beliefs still being credible scientists, as per my quote.

[dickymint]

Gadgetmac said:

Yep. The same standards apply to all. I will never quote somebody who believes in an afterlife or any other fanciful supernatural belief.

Noted

[jshell]

kerplunk said:

jshell said:

kerplunk said:

jshell said:

kerplunk said:

jshell said:

Yeah, that's not what's going on here, GM.

I replied to another poster about Skeptical Science and KP immediately bailed in from left field with a number of attacks from 'stupid', 'grubby opportunistic liar', a 'stain', 'ad-homs' and he tells me to 'motor off'.

I don't think any of us have seen KP react like that and to be honest it makes me mildy suspicious that he's either attached to that site, hugely reliant on that site or with a bit of a reach even one of Cook's amusing alter-ego's as he's been seen to use before...

Calling someone a 'Nazi dresser' because they once photoshopped their own face (I assume Cook did it because he's a cartoonist, but I don't know) onto an old photo of a Nazi sure looks like grubby opportunism to me.

On the other hand, you've been a bit vague about whether you think the picture was a photoshop or a genuine photo of Cook wearing a Nazi uniform - perhaps you'd like to clear that one up.

It's interesting that this issue has crept up over the years in many places, but this is your line in the sand.

I do think you've exposed yourself here.

FWIW, I'd be interested in your view as to why someone would PS their own face onto the figure of a Nazi. Also why you would so quickly step in to protect such a maligned character who had pictures like this on an open website.

I've outlined why I object above. Feel free to fantasise otherwise and make yourself more foolish.

Looks like you think it was a PS - disappointing. I would've preferred you thought it genuine.

Yes, you've outlined your objection to my pointing out that John Cook appears in a picture as a Nazi.

I've outlined my objection to you calling Cook a Nazi dresser- slippy aren't you.

jshell said:

What you haven't done is state why my statement is objectionable, but you won't criticise the guy who produced and kept a photo of himself as a Nazi officer on an open part of his website.

Ok that file of pics shouldn't have been on open part of the website. Sloppy management - how awful. I wouldn't say they were 'stolen' now btw. I thought it came from their hacking incident, but I've just discovered that was the year before.

jshell said:

Do you condemn his actions?

Not really no, looks like a bit of 'office humour' silliness, probably to do with the website initials.

Do you think you've imparted a true picture when you called Cook a 'Nazi dresser' because of this? Happy for people to takeaway the impression from your words that Cook has a penchant for wearing nazi uniforms?

This all really got to you, huh? You support a bunch of guys PS'ing their faces onto pics of Nazis.

One question: What is your link to (non)Skeptical Science? Coz I'm starting to think it's less than casual... or that's your preferred data-mine for sparring with TB, but I don't think it's that..

[kerplunk]

jshell said:

kerplunk said:

jshell said:

kerplunk said:

jshell said:

kerplunk said:

jshell said:

Yeah, that's not what's going on here, GM.

I replied to another poster about Skeptical Science and KP immediately bailed in from left field with a number of attacks from 'stupid', 'grubby opportunistic liar', a 'stain', 'ad-homs' and he tells me to 'motor off'.

I don't think any of us have seen KP react like that and to be honest it makes me mildy suspicious that he's either attached to that site, hugely reliant on that site or with a bit of a reach even one of Cook's amusing alter-ego's as he's been seen to use before...

Calling someone a 'Nazi dresser' because they once photoshopped their own face (I assume Cook did it because he's a cartoonist, but I don't know) onto an old photo of a Nazi sure looks like grubby opportunism to me.

On the other hand, you've been a bit vague about whether you think the picture was a photoshop or a genuine photo of Cook wearing a Nazi uniform - perhaps you'd like to clear that one up.

It's interesting that this issue has crept up over the years in many places, but this is your line in the sand.

I do think you've exposed yourself here.

FWIW, I'd be interested in your view as to why someone would PS their own face onto the figure of a Nazi. Also why you would so quickly step in to protect such a maligned character who had pictures like this on an open website.

I've outlined why I object above. Feel free to fantasise otherwise and make yourself more foolish.

Looks like you think it was a PS - disappointing. I would've preferred you thought it genuine.

Yes, you've outlined your objection to my pointing out that John Cook appears in a picture as a Nazi.

I've outlined my objection to you calling Cook a Nazi dresser- slippy aren't you.

jshell said:

What you haven't done is state why my statement is objectionable, but you won't criticise the guy who produced and kept a photo of himself as a Nazi officer on an open part of his website.

Ok that file of pics shouldn't have been on open part of the website. Sloppy management - how awful. I wouldn't say they were 'stolen' now btw. I thought it came from their hacking incident, but I've just discovered that was the year before.

jshell said:

Do you condemn his actions?

Not really no, looks like a bit of 'office humour' silliness, probably to do with the website initials.

Do you think you've imparted a true picture when you called Cook a 'Nazi dresser' because of this? Happy for people to takeaway the impression from your words that Cook has a penchant for wearing nazi uniforms?

This all really got to you, huh? You support a bunch of guys PS'ing their faces onto pics of Nazis.

One question: What is your link to (non)Skeptical Science? Coz I'm starting to think it's less than casual... or that's your preferred data-mine for sparring with TB, but I don't think it's that..

I notice on the politics thread you made the same claim that Cook "dresses up as a Nazi in his spare time" and disputed that the picture was a photoshop ("doing a Prince Andrew").

Looks like you've changed your mind on that now but remain unrepentent about your now unfounded accussations.

I conclude there's no point talking to you.

Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 3rd December 13:58

[jshell]

kerplunk said:

jshell said:

kerplunk said:

jshell said:

kerplunk said:

jshell said:

kerplunk said:

jshell said:

Yeah, that's not what's going on here, GM.

I replied to another poster about Skeptical Science and KP immediately bailed in from left field with a number of attacks from 'stupid', 'grubby opportunistic liar', a 'stain', 'ad-homs' and he tells me to 'motor off'.

I don't think any of us have seen KP react like that and to be honest it makes me mildy suspicious that he's either attached to that site, hugely reliant on that site or with a bit of a reach even one of Cook's amusing alter-ego's as he's been seen to use before...

Calling someone a 'Nazi dresser' because they once photoshopped their own face (I assume Cook did it because he's a cartoonist, but I don't know) onto an old photo of a Nazi sure looks like grubby opportunism to me.

On the other hand, you've been a bit vague about whether you think the picture was a photoshop or a genuine photo of Cook wearing a Nazi uniform - perhaps you'd like to clear that one up.

It's interesting that this issue has crept up over the years in many places, but this is your line in the sand.

I do think you've exposed yourself here.

FWIW, I'd be interested in your view as to why someone would PS their own face onto the figure of a Nazi. Also why you would so quickly step in to protect such a maligned character who had pictures like this on an open website.

I've outlined why I object above. Feel free to fantasise otherwise and make yourself more foolish.

Looks like you think it was a PS - disappointing. I would've preferred you thought it genuine.

Yes, you've outlined your objection to my pointing out that John Cook appears in a picture as a Nazi.

I've outlined my objection to you calling Cook a Nazi dresser- slippy aren't you.

jshell said:

What you haven't done is state why my statement is objectionable, but you won't criticise the guy who produced and kept a photo of himself as a Nazi officer on an open part of his website.

Ok that file of pics shouldn't have been on open part of the website. Sloppy management - how awful. I wouldn't say they were 'stolen' now btw. I thought it came from their hacking incident, but I've just discovered that was the year before.

jshell said:

Do you condemn his actions?

Not really no, looks like a bit of 'office humour' silliness, probably to do with the website initials.

Do you think you've imparted a true picture when you called Cook a 'Nazi dresser' because of this? Happy for people to takeaway the impression from your words that Cook has a penchant for wearing nazi uniforms?

This all really got to you, huh? You support a bunch of guys PS'ing their faces onto pics of Nazis.

One question: What is your link to (non)Skeptical Science? Coz I'm starting to think it's less than casual... or that's your preferred data-mine for sparring with TB, but I don't think it's that..

I notice on the politics thread you made the same claim that Cook "dresses up as a Nazi in his spare time" and disputed that the picture was a photoshop ("doing a Prince Andrew").

Looks like you've changed your mind on that now but remain unrepentent about your now unfounded accussations.

I conclude there's no point talking to you.

Why would I repent the fact that the SS website contained pictures of the owners/partners pictured as Nazi's? Are you saying that's not true? I concede that they were PS's, but they were there, they weren't hacked and added by nefarious agents.... They did that and it harms SS very much.

I see you state you won't speak to me again, fair do's, but with every post I think you're coming out as at least a significant contributor to that site full of hysteria and that blocks all and any scepticism.

Are you John Cook, Kerplunk?