Lord Monckton on Global Warming...
-
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.[^]
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
This is an absolute primary source.
No it isn't. Go find the primary source on the primary site.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Get your ignorant ass educated.
Pathetic. Grow up.
Bob Emmett
Its the governments own document. Pity you.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
I go to the researchers
The ones at the CRU?
God, you are like a broken record. Don't be so dense, from context you can pretty much figure out he meant that he looks at the information from both sides and from their research, not from some talking heads. And again, you fixate on 1 point, ignore the fact that you have been addressed on 5 other points and somehow act as if that one point is more important than the ones before. This would almost be acceptable if it were not for the fact that every time you do this, people bring up 5 more points where you fail and you just pick up 1 point and cling to it like a life preserver. Wikipedia can be altered by anyone with an agenda. Yep. And everytime it has happened it has been caught a few dozen have garnered some impressive press coverage. People running for office trying to cover up well documented scandals have run afoul of the checks they put into it to stop just such an action. IP logs are kept, people check to see if edits are done for selfish reasons and the site is generally well policed by people on all sides of political and personal ideologies. Now quit acting like people that disagree with you cannot have any intelligence whatsoever when you have shown a distinct lack of comprehension on a simple term even after linking to an article explaining it.
-
God, you are like a broken record. Don't be so dense, from context you can pretty much figure out he meant that he looks at the information from both sides and from their research, not from some talking heads. And again, you fixate on 1 point, ignore the fact that you have been addressed on 5 other points and somehow act as if that one point is more important than the ones before. This would almost be acceptable if it were not for the fact that every time you do this, people bring up 5 more points where you fail and you just pick up 1 point and cling to it like a life preserver. Wikipedia can be altered by anyone with an agenda. Yep. And everytime it has happened it has been caught a few dozen have garnered some impressive press coverage. People running for office trying to cover up well documented scandals have run afoul of the checks they put into it to stop just such an action. IP logs are kept, people check to see if edits are done for selfish reasons and the site is generally well policed by people on all sides of political and personal ideologies. Now quit acting like people that disagree with you cannot have any intelligence whatsoever when you have shown a distinct lack of comprehension on a simple term even after linking to an article explaining it.
How are you.. how dare you. Go play with your GI joe, boy. Leave the thinking to the intelligent people.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
I go to the researchers
The ones at the CRU?
"That said, to understand the pro's and con's of AGW, I go to the researchers"
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The ones at the CRU?
I am sorry, I forgot how very slow witted you are. Let me make it more easy for you to understand. AGW: Anthropogenic (that means man made) Global Warming pro: for con: against Some research scientists are for AGW. Some research scientists are against AGW. The research scientists publish papers saying why they are for or against AGW. To understand their arguments, both for and against, I read their papers. I do not watch Al Gore. I do not watch Christopher Monckton. I do not watch non scientists explaining scientific matters.
Bob Emmett
-
"That said, to understand the pro's and con's of AGW, I go to the researchers"
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The ones at the CRU?
I am sorry, I forgot how very slow witted you are. Let me make it more easy for you to understand. AGW: Anthropogenic (that means man made) Global Warming pro: for con: against Some research scientists are for AGW. Some research scientists are against AGW. The research scientists publish papers saying why they are for or against AGW. To understand their arguments, both for and against, I read their papers. I do not watch Al Gore. I do not watch Christopher Monckton. I do not watch non scientists explaining scientific matters.
Bob Emmett
Bob Emmett wrote:
Let me make it more easy for you to understand.
Perhaps you forgot about the climategate scandal. The science has been proven fraudulent. Its a power hungry money grabbing conspiracy. Its over for you climate cultists.
-
How are you.. how dare you. Go play with your GI joe, boy. Leave the thinking to the intelligent people.
-
How are you.. how dare you. Go play with your GI joe, boy. Leave the thinking to the intelligent people.
BOY?!?! Listen here, you pretentious little fuckwit. If you want to use demeaning terms you should at least get your groups and ages correct, moron. You are the stupid little shit that was too young to do anything when I was in the military. YOU are the one asking what I was doing to help my country when you are too much of a chicken shit to enlist and try to defend it. YOU ARE THE ONE THAT CAN'T EVEN FUCKING UNDERSTAND A TERM YOU LINKED TO!!! So lose the attitude. I dare because unlike you, if someone addressed me in the manner you just did to my face, I would, in fact, kick their ass. You want to compare intelligence or courage sometime with me, feel free. You won't win that. You want to ask how I dare to point out your mistakes and your idiocy, it is because you deserve it. Now do us all a favor and go back to sucking on your thumb and hoping the tin foil hat help. Leave the thinking to intelligent, rational people.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Let me make it more easy for you to understand.
Perhaps you forgot about the climategate scandal. The science has been proven fraudulent. Its a power hungry money grabbing conspiracy. Its over for you climate cultists.
It is someone who has no clue how science works opinion that the science was fraudulent. Yippee, give him a cookie for not understanding the data or the reasoning behind the e-mails. It's like Fox News with you on this.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Let me make it more easy for you to understand.
Perhaps you forgot about the climategate scandal. The science has been proven fraudulent. Its a power hungry money grabbing conspiracy. Its over for you climate cultists.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Perhaps you forgot about the climategate scandal.
Some of us knew about it long before you, Dimbo.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The science has been proven fraudulent.
What even that against AGW?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Its a power hungry money grabbing conspiracy.
Now you are merely parroting.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Its over for you climate cultists.
So now I'm a climate cultist? :rolleyes: How come?
Bob Emmett
-
BOY?!?! Listen here, you pretentious little fuckwit. If you want to use demeaning terms you should at least get your groups and ages correct, moron. You are the stupid little shit that was too young to do anything when I was in the military. YOU are the one asking what I was doing to help my country when you are too much of a chicken shit to enlist and try to defend it. YOU ARE THE ONE THAT CAN'T EVEN FUCKING UNDERSTAND A TERM YOU LINKED TO!!! So lose the attitude. I dare because unlike you, if someone addressed me in the manner you just did to my face, I would, in fact, kick their ass. You want to compare intelligence or courage sometime with me, feel free. You won't win that. You want to ask how I dare to point out your mistakes and your idiocy, it is because you deserve it. Now do us all a favor and go back to sucking on your thumb and hoping the tin foil hat help. Leave the thinking to intelligent, rational people.
Enlist so I can defend the opium fields in afgan? You really are stupid. If you really were interested in defending this country, you would join the Oath Keepers.