Lord Monckton on Global Warming...
-
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.
-
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
Bob Emmett wrote:
I go to the researchers
The ones at the CRU?
-
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.
-
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.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Is a book? Just because its in a book doesn't make it true. The same for all media.
DING! We have a winner. Cross reference, find the details they left out, the false bits they added, it's the only way to have the slightest idea what the truth is. Which is pretty much the reason I enjoy demeaning you over your fascination with Alex Jones. Even if he did mean well, he couldn't possibly know enough about the situations he discusses to really know what's going on. And frankly, from over here he looks like a con.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
You never go to primary sources to verify the garbage you post here.
This is an absolute primary source. Get your ignorant ass educated.[^]