Lord Monckton on Global Warming...
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Wikipedia is not a reputable source of information.
A bit like you then.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You have nothing on what he said, so you go for a poorly thought out ineffective character assassination.
What character assassination? I listened to his interview and deduced that while he holds some strong opinions he offers no evidence in support of them. He is just another one of your straw men, who think because they get quoted in the press they must be experts.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
That being said. Monckton is extremely well spoken, well researched, well networked with the highest of individuals, and extremely intelligent.
Well apart from being well-spoken this statement is so obviously false. It really is time you did some proper research instead of watching all these loony tunes characters on You-Tube.
Just as I suspected. You have nothing credible to counter his claims. Pity you.
-
I have not changed my opinion since I posted this http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3238596/Re-The-End-of-America.aspx[^]
So you have nothing credible to counter his claims? Just throwing mud I see. Pathetic fool.
-
Again, if you cite wikipedia in any reputable academic institution you get an automatic fail.
Where did I say to cite it? I mean I know you can beat strawmen to threads, but I'm saying it's a useful starting point, and at this point most of the academic community admits that, even if they won't let you cite it because they're to dense to realize it averages about one more error per article than most encyclopedias. Just because it says things you don't like, doesn't make it wrong.
-
Where did I say to cite it? I mean I know you can beat strawmen to threads, but I'm saying it's a useful starting point, and at this point most of the academic community admits that, even if they won't let you cite it because they're to dense to realize it averages about one more error per article than most encyclopedias. Just because it says things you don't like, doesn't make it wrong.
Distind wrote:
they won't let you cite it because they're to too dense
Absolute spew. I've seen wikipedia articles that are totally bogus. The notion that wikipedia is a reputable source is complete nonsense.
Distind wrote:
it averages about one more error per article than most encyclopedias.
Where is your evidence of this? Nobody has seen any indication of that. That is why reputable academic institutions fail your ass if you are ignorant enough to cite wikipedia.
-
Distind wrote:
they won't let you cite it because they're to too dense
Absolute spew. I've seen wikipedia articles that are totally bogus. The notion that wikipedia is a reputable source is complete nonsense.
Distind wrote:
it averages about one more error per article than most encyclopedias.
Where is your evidence of this? Nobody has seen any indication of that. That is why reputable academic institutions fail your ass if you are ignorant enough to cite wikipedia.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Absolute spew. I've seen wikipedia articles that are totally bogus. The notion that wikipedia is a reputable source is complete nonsense.
Toss me a few, I'm curious. At least the topics I've used it for have generally been a condensed version of what I could have found explained over a few hundred pages of a textbook. I've yet to find a significant issue with the mathematical or technical articles, which have been pretty much all I've used it for. And really, grammar attack?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Where is your evidence of this? Nobody has seen any indication of that. That is why reputable academic institutions fail your ass if you are ignorant enough to cite wikipedia.
I'll look up the study on my break
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Absolute spew. I've seen wikipedia articles that are totally bogus. The notion that wikipedia is a reputable source is complete nonsense.
Toss me a few, I'm curious. At least the topics I've used it for have generally been a condensed version of what I could have found explained over a few hundred pages of a textbook. I've yet to find a significant issue with the mathematical or technical articles, which have been pretty much all I've used it for. And really, grammar attack?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Where is your evidence of this? Nobody has seen any indication of that. That is why reputable academic institutions fail your ass if you are ignorant enough to cite wikipedia.
I'll look up the study on my break
Distind wrote:
Toss me a few
You really are stupid. I'm not going to waste my precious time looking for errors in random articles that are constantly changing.
Distind wrote:
I'll look up the study on my break
You do that.
-
Just as I suspected. You have nothing credible to counter his claims. Pity you.
-
Distind wrote:
Some folks have a life hBoss.
FTFY.
-
Distind wrote:
they won't let you cite it because they're to too dense
Absolute spew. I've seen wikipedia articles that are totally bogus. The notion that wikipedia is a reputable source is complete nonsense.
Distind wrote:
it averages about one more error per article than most encyclopedias.
Where is your evidence of this? Nobody has seen any indication of that. That is why reputable academic institutions fail your ass if you are ignorant enough to cite wikipedia.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Distind wrote: it averages about one more error per article than most encyclopedias. Where is your evidence of this? Nobody has seen any indication of that. That is why reputable academic institutions fail your ass if you are ignorant enough to cite wikipedia.
http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html[^] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Lord Monckton will be attending the criminal conference to persuade the delegates that the science is faulty. Here is what Lord Monckton has to say in the interview with RT in Scotland.[^] Listen to him very closely, he is extremely intelligent.
I'll miss you most of all, scarecrow.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I'll miss you most of all, scarecrow.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Oh, be nice... He clearly has a brain. I mean, look at the term "brainwashed." If he didn't have a brain, there would be nothing for AJ and RP to... uh... wash. So he's not so much like scarecrow... He's more like a roomba. :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Distind wrote:
Toss me a few
You really are stupid. I'm not going to waste my precious time looking for errors in random articles that are constantly changing.
Distind wrote:
I'll look up the study on my break
You do that.
-
Oh, be nice... He clearly has a brain. I mean, look at the term "brainwashed." If he didn't have a brain, there would be nothing for AJ and RP to... uh... wash. So he's not so much like scarecrow... He's more like a roomba. :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
I'm pleased the first reply is from someone who got it, I expected him to reply and be totally confused.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I'm pleased the first reply is from someone who got it, I expected him to reply and be totally confused.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
I expected him to reply and be totally confused.
Come on, man... That's redundant. When is he NOT totally confused?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
So you have nothing credible to counter his claims? Just throwing mud I see. Pathetic fool.
-
Wikipedia is not a reputable source of information. Particularly on individuals. You have nothing on what he said, so you go for a poorly thought out ineffective character assassination. That being said. Monckton is extremely well spoken, well researched, well networked with the highest of individuals, and extremely intelligent.
-
I'll miss you most of all, scarecrow.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
HEY!!!! That's my line. :) If we all just refer to him as this when he pulls a strawman at least we all know what to deal with. Him picking on Wikipedia while ignoring his own "sources" lack of evidence was pretty funny today though.
-
Of course. It's on the interwebs, it must be true!
-
Wikipedia is not a reputable source of information. Particularly on individuals. You have nothing on what he said, so you go for a poorly thought out ineffective character assassination. That being said. Monckton is extremely well spoken, well researched, well networked with the highest of individuals, and extremely intelligent.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Wikipedia is not a reputable source of information.
Having now read through the Wikipedia entry for Christopher Monckton, it tallies with my experience of his actions over the past 30 odd years.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Monckton is extremely well spoken, well researched, well networked with the highest of individuals, and extremely intelligent.
Being well spoken is no indication of intelligence, had you lived in Britain you would be well aware of that. Given that opposing AGW is his job, of course he is well researched. Those engaged in building systems are 'well researched' in each industry for which they work, gaining a wide spectrum of knowledge as a result. Of course he is well networked, he went to Harrow (a very expensive private school) and Cambridge (the best University in Britain), the 'old boy' network. He is intelligent, though not extremely so. But the possession of intelligence does not prevent one from being silly or wrong from time to time. That said, to understand the pro's and con's of AGW, I go to the researchers, not their spokespersons.
Bob Emmett
-
Is a book? Just because its in a book doesn't make it true. The same for all media. Its whats in the book, or video documentary that matters. As far as wiki goes, you can't count on whats in it because anyone can change it.