|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 11, 2023 17:47:10 GMT
I have asked you on a number of occasions to show the qualifications or peer reviewed articles by those on Whatsupwiththat. You have never responded. I have consistently referred to articles and qualifications in response to your questions and not all comes from wattsupwiththat, they are broadly a point where science is reported and frequently science that the more 'discerning' publications do not wish to handle. That does not mean it is not science it just means it does not tie in with the narrative. I am afraid peer review although a largely good idea has now become a method of censorship as opposed to verifying procedures and conclusions. I shall make major efforts to list qualifications and articles with each comment. When you become tired let me know. EDIT One other point the data that is used is the official data in most instances. If the blogger says the US has not warmed that is drawn from the data referenced. Yep. That all only works if you assume scientists from every country in the world have agreed to lie. Scientists from China, USA, Russia, India all got together in a secret room. Its about the most laughable conspiracy theory to date. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 11, 2023 17:48:14 GMT
I'll send you a link to Terry's do it my way brain cancer. So you believed the economic experts in the Treasury when they said that we would have an immediate recession, a house and share price crash and 500,00 extra unemployed if we voted for Brexit? Or don't you listen to experts? Economics is not science. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 11, 2023 19:03:25 GMT
I have consistently referred to articles and qualifications in response to your questions and not all comes from wattsupwiththat, they are broadly a point where science is reported and frequently science that the more 'discerning' publications do not wish to handle. That does not mean it is not science it just means it does not tie in with the narrative. I am afraid peer review although a largely good idea has now become a method of censorship as opposed to verifying procedures and conclusions. I shall make major efforts to list qualifications and articles with each comment. When you become tired let me know. EDIT One other point the data that is used is the official data in most instances. If the blogger says the US has not warmed that is drawn from the data referenced. Yep. That all only works if you assume scientists from every country in the world have agreed to lie. Scientists from China, USA, Russia, India all got together in a secret room. Its about the most laughable conspiracy theory to date. Well let us just as a question. Would you trust science results from scientists and researchers whose living depended on funding from oil companies and if not why not? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 11, 2023 19:05:19 GMT
So you believed the economic experts in the Treasury when they said that we would have an immediate recession, a house and share price crash and 500,00 extra unemployed if we voted for Brexit? Or don't you listen to experts? Economics is not science. It uses scientific methods to construct its theories that quite usually do not work. Perhaps there is a lesson there for planetary modellers. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 11, 2023 19:56:16 GMT
Yep. That all only works if you assume scientists from every country in the world have agreed to lie. Scientists from China, USA, Russia, India all got together in a secret room. Its about the most laughable conspiracy theory to date. Well let us just as a question. Would you trust science results from scientists and researchers whose living depended on funding from oil companies and if not why not? Another attempt to muddy the water. scientists from every country in the world have agreed to lie. Scientists from China, USA, Russia, India |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 11, 2023 20:12:06 GMT
Well let us just as a question. Would you trust science results from scientists and researchers whose living depended on funding from oil companies and if not why not? Another attempt to muddy the water. scientists from every country in the world have agreed to lie. Scientists from China, USA, Russia, India It depends on what the lie is and if in perpetuating the lie there is some advantage to them to do so. So I ask again would you believe the myriad of scientists who have worked/work for oil, gas and coal producers to present information free from any taint of bias? It is an easy question. EDIT, if it helps my brother is a research chemist and was asked to produce a paper as regards the effects on climate of the greenhouse gas anaesthetics made by the company he regularly consulted for. They delicately put that they hoped it would show not such a strong effect. He is retired and did not need to worry so he produced an honest appraisal. If he had been thirty years younger and needed the position who knows. The point is the pressure was there even if it was very low level. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 11, 2023 20:29:40 GMT
Another attempt to muddy the water. scientists from every country in the world have agreed to lie. Scientists from China, USA, Russia, India It depends on what the lie is and if in perpetuating the lie there is some advantage to them to do so. So I ask again would you believe the myriad of scientists who have worked/work for oil, gas and coal producers to present information free from any taint of bias? It is an easy question. EDIT, if it helps my brother is a research chemist and was asked to produce a paper as regards the effects on climate of the greenhouse gas anaesthetics made by the company he regularly consulted for. They delicately put that they hoped it would show not such a strong effect. He is retired and did not need to worry so he produced an honest appraisal. If he had been thirty years younger and needed the position who knows. The point is the pressure was there even if it was very low level. You can ask as times as you like, the answer is the same. scientists from every country in the world have agreed to lie. Scientists from China, USA, Russia, India. They aren't for sale to oil companies or anyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 11, 2023 20:58:59 GMT
It depends on what the lie is and if in perpetuating the lie there is some advantage to them to do so. So I ask again would you believe the myriad of scientists who have worked/work for oil, gas and coal producers to present information free from any taint of bias? It is an easy question. EDIT, if it helps my brother is a research chemist and was asked to produce a paper as regards the effects on climate of the greenhouse gas anaesthetics made by the company he regularly consulted for. They delicately put that they hoped it would show not such a strong effect. He is retired and did not need to worry so he produced an honest appraisal. If he had been thirty years younger and needed the position who knows. The point is the pressure was there even if it was very low level. You can ask as times as you like, the answer is the same. scientists from every country in the world have agreed to lie. Scientists from China, USA, Russia, India. They aren't for sale to oil companies or anyone else. Well that now raises the question is why do so many scientists from all corners of the world disagree with the findings and the scepticism is growing as we speak as others break ranks. Have they all come together to ridicule 'the truth' for some nefarious reasons of their own? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 11, 2023 21:33:04 GMT
You can ask as times as you like, the answer is the same. scientists from every country in the world have agreed to lie. Scientists from China, USA, Russia, India. They aren't for sale to oil companies or anyone else. Well that now raises the question is why do so many scientists from all corners of the world disagree with the findings and the scepticism is growing as we speak as others break ranks. Have they all come together to ridicule 'the truth' for some nefarious reasons of their own? Why so many scientists from all corners support the consensus that AGW exists and is a grievous danger. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 11, 2023 21:37:22 GMT
So you believed the economic experts in the Treasury when they said that we would have an immediate recession, a house and share price crash and 500,00 extra unemployed if we voted for Brexit? Or don't you listen to experts? Economics is not science. OK - is Professor Ferguson of Imperial College an expert? Please give us a list of experts we should listen to. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 12, 2023 8:30:52 GMT
Economics is not science. OK - is Professor Ferguson of Imperial College an expert? Please give us a list of experts we should listen to. You know full well what I mean. Economics has always been a guessing game. Is guitar playing a science? Is everything a science. But most importantly when discussing the science of physics why did you have to switch to economics to point out how experts are not very expert. I can guess. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Sept 12, 2023 8:38:05 GMT
I"ll read the opposition argument until i hit a clear exaggeration, lie or omission. I stop there. This approach will limit you to reading your own views No indeed. I'll read anything that is honest and comprehensive. And reject anything that lies by omission or exaggeration. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 12, 2023 8:50:05 GMT
This approach will limit you to reading your own views No indeed. I'll read anything that is honest and comprehensive. And reject anything that lies by omission or exaggeration. Oracle, can't you see the problem here? Something you disagree with is going to appear to be in error to you. To get balance, you need engage in a sincere attempt to understand why your opposition has the opinions they do. This will also significantly diffuse any anger you have |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Sept 12, 2023 9:00:20 GMT
Where the mind zone turns into the mindless zone. So everybody accepts said mindless truths. There is no official doctrine in the mind zone. How about other sections? Ukraine for example? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 12, 2023 9:12:37 GMT
Well that now raises the question is why do so many scientists from all corners of the world disagree with the findings and the scepticism is growing as we speak as others break ranks. Have they all come together to ridicule 'the truth' for some nefarious reasons of their own? Why so many scientists from all corners support the consensus that AGW exists and is a grievous danger. What is the level of that support and where is that information that 'so many' are in line with the consensus? |
|
