Lord Monckton on Global Warming...
-
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.
-
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.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
he is extremely intelligent
I guess he comes in with an IQ around CSSx10; so that'll be ~15 or still 'ESN'. Go back to the cave and your pron collection.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
modified on Monday, December 7, 2009 11:48 AM
-
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.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Listen to him very closely, he is extremely intelligent silly.
FTFY Christopher Monckton[^]
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.
-
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.
From what I remember on average it's just slightly behind most encyclopedias. Individuals can be distorted, but if you check the revision history it's generally easy to pick out the false information and what group is likely behind it. That said, it's generally a good place to use to find primary sources.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Wikipedia is not a reputable source of information.
From what I remember on average it's just slightly behind most encyclopedias. Individuals can be distorted, but if you check the revision history it's generally easy to pick out the false information and what group is likely behind it. That said, it's generally a good place to use to find primary sources.
Distind wrote:
That said, it's generally a good place to use to find primary sources.
It is the absolute worst place to look up biographies. They don' even allow sourcing of wikipedia on school papers for that very reason. Its not at all a reputable source of information. You would have to be completely ignorant to site wikipedia as a source of facts.
-
Distind wrote:
That said, it's generally a good place to use to find primary sources.
It is the absolute worst place to look up biographies. They don' even allow sourcing of wikipedia on school papers for that very reason. Its not at all a reputable source of information. You would have to be completely ignorant to site wikipedia as a source of facts.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It is the absolute worst place to look up biographies.
It certainly is for you. You never go to primary sources to verify the garbage you post here.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You would have to be completely ignorant to site wikipedia as a source of facts.
You would have to be quite ignorant to use 'site' in the above sentence.
Bob Emmett
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
Distind wrote:
That said, it's generally a good place to use to find primary sources.
It is the absolute worst place to look up biographies. They don' even allow sourcing of wikipedia on school papers for that very reason. Its not at all a reputable source of information. You would have to be completely ignorant to site wikipedia as a source of facts.
Do you know what a primary source is? Generally it's one of the references at the bottom of the page, and if you can find a good book or two on the subject from the wikipedia page, you can cite those. More often than not I wound up using information from those books which was mentioned on the wikipedia page, though occasionally not as in depth. Now, those who try to control their image, or are generally a bunch of quacks, lunatics or losers on a grand scale, can have very distorted entries, but it's not that hard to skim through the references of a few revisions and read over the references.
-
Do you know what a primary source is? Generally it's one of the references at the bottom of the page, and if you can find a good book or two on the subject from the wikipedia page, you can cite those. More often than not I wound up using information from those books which was mentioned on the wikipedia page, though occasionally not as in depth. Now, those who try to control their image, or are generally a bunch of quacks, lunatics or losers on a grand scale, can have very distorted entries, but it's not that hard to skim through the references of a few revisions and read over the references.
Again, if you cite wikipedia in any reputable academic institution you get an automatic fail.
-
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.
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
It really is time you did some proper research
Like the kind that the CRU does? :laugh:
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It is the absolute worst place to look up biographies.
It certainly is for you. You never go to primary sources to verify the garbage you post here.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You would have to be completely ignorant to site wikipedia as a source of facts.
You would have to be quite ignorant to use 'site' in the above sentence.
Bob Emmett
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:
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.