Unabated lunacy continues
-
http://grendelreport.posterous.com/global-warming-alarmists-conclude-that-global[^] "This month’s offering from the alarmists is a “scientific” study that basically demonstrates that alarmists are right about climate change because alarmists who believe they are right about climate change publish a lot of papers that demonstrate how right they are about climate change. That isn’t circular logic. Circular logic would be embarrassed to be seen in the same room as this study. This sort of tortured reasoning is so twisted that M.C. Escher and Salvador Dali would have trouble coming to grips with it." This is the study, by no less than Dr. Stephen H. Schneider, he of global cooling fame in the 1970s, and later a global warming advocate, that shows that 98% of GW related papers are written by advocates of GW, and that therefore, since they are in a majority, they are correct, and the 2% wrong. Perhaps having sex with animals is also right because 98% of sex with animals stories are written by people who have sex with animals and think its OK.... Anyway, this logic is almost as mindnumbingly tortured as that of the Global Windy is the new GLobal Warming study, http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/34398[^] " Robert Allen and Steven Sherwood of Yale University have used wind data taken from weather balloons as a proxy for direct temperature measurements to give the first conclusive evidence that the upper troposphere has been warming after all. ", a study that still has me crying with laughter whenever I read it. Anyway, back Mr 'I cant make my mind up' Schnider, lets take a closer look at his profound postulations over the decades: http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm[^] "There is a finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the Earth within the next 100 years." "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols - Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate ... the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" "The ra
-
http://grendelreport.posterous.com/global-warming-alarmists-conclude-that-global[^] "This month’s offering from the alarmists is a “scientific” study that basically demonstrates that alarmists are right about climate change because alarmists who believe they are right about climate change publish a lot of papers that demonstrate how right they are about climate change. That isn’t circular logic. Circular logic would be embarrassed to be seen in the same room as this study. This sort of tortured reasoning is so twisted that M.C. Escher and Salvador Dali would have trouble coming to grips with it." This is the study, by no less than Dr. Stephen H. Schneider, he of global cooling fame in the 1970s, and later a global warming advocate, that shows that 98% of GW related papers are written by advocates of GW, and that therefore, since they are in a majority, they are correct, and the 2% wrong. Perhaps having sex with animals is also right because 98% of sex with animals stories are written by people who have sex with animals and think its OK.... Anyway, this logic is almost as mindnumbingly tortured as that of the Global Windy is the new GLobal Warming study, http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/34398[^] " Robert Allen and Steven Sherwood of Yale University have used wind data taken from weather balloons as a proxy for direct temperature measurements to give the first conclusive evidence that the upper troposphere has been warming after all. ", a study that still has me crying with laughter whenever I read it. Anyway, back Mr 'I cant make my mind up' Schnider, lets take a closer look at his profound postulations over the decades: http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm[^] "There is a finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the Earth within the next 100 years." "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols - Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate ... the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" "The ra
-
http://grendelreport.posterous.com/global-warming-alarmists-conclude-that-global[^] "This month’s offering from the alarmists is a “scientific” study that basically demonstrates that alarmists are right about climate change because alarmists who believe they are right about climate change publish a lot of papers that demonstrate how right they are about climate change. That isn’t circular logic. Circular logic would be embarrassed to be seen in the same room as this study. This sort of tortured reasoning is so twisted that M.C. Escher and Salvador Dali would have trouble coming to grips with it." This is the study, by no less than Dr. Stephen H. Schneider, he of global cooling fame in the 1970s, and later a global warming advocate, that shows that 98% of GW related papers are written by advocates of GW, and that therefore, since they are in a majority, they are correct, and the 2% wrong. Perhaps having sex with animals is also right because 98% of sex with animals stories are written by people who have sex with animals and think its OK.... Anyway, this logic is almost as mindnumbingly tortured as that of the Global Windy is the new GLobal Warming study, http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/34398[^] " Robert Allen and Steven Sherwood of Yale University have used wind data taken from weather balloons as a proxy for direct temperature measurements to give the first conclusive evidence that the upper troposphere has been warming after all. ", a study that still has me crying with laughter whenever I read it. Anyway, back Mr 'I cant make my mind up' Schnider, lets take a closer look at his profound postulations over the decades: http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm[^] "There is a finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the Earth within the next 100 years." "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols - Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate ... the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" "The ra
fat_boy wrote:
More crappy AGW science from a self confessed dramatist and liar. Wow, and I wonder if I think I will take him seriously.
Alright, you're almost there. Now imagine you actually had an interest in science and avoiding potential extinctions of the human race, and someone kept ranting about how it isn't possible, how all off these cherry picked examples where horribly wrong, and no matter what was said to them they continued to pick examples that very few people had any interest in defending. How seriously would you take them? Because really, you're like halfway to actually being able to look at the issue without the hyperbol.
-
http://grendelreport.posterous.com/global-warming-alarmists-conclude-that-global[^] "This month’s offering from the alarmists is a “scientific” study that basically demonstrates that alarmists are right about climate change because alarmists who believe they are right about climate change publish a lot of papers that demonstrate how right they are about climate change. That isn’t circular logic. Circular logic would be embarrassed to be seen in the same room as this study. This sort of tortured reasoning is so twisted that M.C. Escher and Salvador Dali would have trouble coming to grips with it." This is the study, by no less than Dr. Stephen H. Schneider, he of global cooling fame in the 1970s, and later a global warming advocate, that shows that 98% of GW related papers are written by advocates of GW, and that therefore, since they are in a majority, they are correct, and the 2% wrong. Perhaps having sex with animals is also right because 98% of sex with animals stories are written by people who have sex with animals and think its OK.... Anyway, this logic is almost as mindnumbingly tortured as that of the Global Windy is the new GLobal Warming study, http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/34398[^] " Robert Allen and Steven Sherwood of Yale University have used wind data taken from weather balloons as a proxy for direct temperature measurements to give the first conclusive evidence that the upper troposphere has been warming after all. ", a study that still has me crying with laughter whenever I read it. Anyway, back Mr 'I cant make my mind up' Schnider, lets take a closer look at his profound postulations over the decades: http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm[^] "There is a finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the Earth within the next 100 years." "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols - Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate ... the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" "The ra
What you mean as opposed to the 98% of stuff that you post coming from agw sites proving you right?
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
-
:zzz:
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
stop moving!!! :zzz: :zzz:
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
-
http://grendelreport.posterous.com/global-warming-alarmists-conclude-that-global[^] "This month’s offering from the alarmists is a “scientific” study that basically demonstrates that alarmists are right about climate change because alarmists who believe they are right about climate change publish a lot of papers that demonstrate how right they are about climate change. That isn’t circular logic. Circular logic would be embarrassed to be seen in the same room as this study. This sort of tortured reasoning is so twisted that M.C. Escher and Salvador Dali would have trouble coming to grips with it." This is the study, by no less than Dr. Stephen H. Schneider, he of global cooling fame in the 1970s, and later a global warming advocate, that shows that 98% of GW related papers are written by advocates of GW, and that therefore, since they are in a majority, they are correct, and the 2% wrong. Perhaps having sex with animals is also right because 98% of sex with animals stories are written by people who have sex with animals and think its OK.... Anyway, this logic is almost as mindnumbingly tortured as that of the Global Windy is the new GLobal Warming study, http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/34398[^] " Robert Allen and Steven Sherwood of Yale University have used wind data taken from weather balloons as a proxy for direct temperature measurements to give the first conclusive evidence that the upper troposphere has been warming after all. ", a study that still has me crying with laughter whenever I read it. Anyway, back Mr 'I cant make my mind up' Schnider, lets take a closer look at his profound postulations over the decades: http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm[^] "There is a finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the Earth within the next 100 years." "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols - Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate ... the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" "The ra
Climate scientists at a top UK research unit have emerged from an inquiry with their reputations for honesty intact but with a lack of openness criticised. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10538198.stm[^] Well, Fat_Boy, not what you were expecting I suspect, so, rant away, you know you want to ...
-
http://grendelreport.posterous.com/global-warming-alarmists-conclude-that-global[^] "This month’s offering from the alarmists is a “scientific” study that basically demonstrates that alarmists are right about climate change because alarmists who believe they are right about climate change publish a lot of papers that demonstrate how right they are about climate change. That isn’t circular logic. Circular logic would be embarrassed to be seen in the same room as this study. This sort of tortured reasoning is so twisted that M.C. Escher and Salvador Dali would have trouble coming to grips with it." This is the study, by no less than Dr. Stephen H. Schneider, he of global cooling fame in the 1970s, and later a global warming advocate, that shows that 98% of GW related papers are written by advocates of GW, and that therefore, since they are in a majority, they are correct, and the 2% wrong. Perhaps having sex with animals is also right because 98% of sex with animals stories are written by people who have sex with animals and think its OK.... Anyway, this logic is almost as mindnumbingly tortured as that of the Global Windy is the new GLobal Warming study, http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/34398[^] " Robert Allen and Steven Sherwood of Yale University have used wind data taken from weather balloons as a proxy for direct temperature measurements to give the first conclusive evidence that the upper troposphere has been warming after all. ", a study that still has me crying with laughter whenever I read it. Anyway, back Mr 'I cant make my mind up' Schnider, lets take a closer look at his profound postulations over the decades: http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm[^] "There is a finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the Earth within the next 100 years." "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols - Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate ... the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" "The ra
Your comments are based on an article that is based on a summary that is based on a peer-reviewed article. What, was the summary article too difficult for you to understand? You actually need some other blogger to interpret a summary article for you? Hahahaha! That's hilarious. Thank goodness you have people who can tell you how to think about an article that you never read.
- F
-
fat_boy wrote:
More crappy AGW science from a self confessed dramatist and liar. Wow, and I wonder if I think I will take him seriously.
Alright, you're almost there. Now imagine you actually had an interest in science and avoiding potential extinctions of the human race, and someone kept ranting about how it isn't possible, how all off these cherry picked examples where horribly wrong, and no matter what was said to them they continued to pick examples that very few people had any interest in defending. How seriously would you take them? Because really, you're like halfway to actually being able to look at the issue without the hyperbol.
-
Climate scientists at a top UK research unit have emerged from an inquiry with their reputations for honesty intact but with a lack of openness criticised. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10538198.stm[^] Well, Fat_Boy, not what you were expecting I suspect, so, rant away, you know you want to ...
It's just legal precedent: Ramsbottom v Blackpool Zoo. The magistrate gave his opinion that no one was really to blame.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Well, Fat_Boy, not what you were expecting I suspect
Just what I was expecting, I'm afraid.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
What you mean as opposed to the 98% of stuff that you post coming from agw sites proving you right?
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
-
Climate scientists at a top UK research unit have emerged from an inquiry with their reputations for honesty intact but with a lack of openness criticised. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10538198.stm[^] Well, Fat_Boy, not what you were expecting I suspect, so, rant away, you know you want to ...
-
Your comments are based on an article that is based on a summary that is based on a peer-reviewed article. What, was the summary article too difficult for you to understand? You actually need some other blogger to interpret a summary article for you? Hahahaha! That's hilarious. Thank goodness you have people who can tell you how to think about an article that you never read.
- F
Actually I just liked the way this guy worded it. I read this ridiculous bit of 'scicnce' some days ago, but havent seen it so humourously dismissed as this, I thought I would share it with everyone as it is pretty funny. So sorry. Your cheap shot missed by a mile. See if you can come back with some science rather than a personal attack, you might have better luck scoring.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
You thought it WOULDNT be a whitewash? Seing Jones fess up to the BBC was good enough, real blood too much to hope for.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
You thought it WOULDNT be a whitewash?
Nope. I didn't say that. I just brought it to your attention. Nothing more. Nothing less. That way, you can rant and rave about it 'till your heart's content. Its contents do not trouble me one way or t'other.
-
fat_boy wrote:
More crappy AGW science from a self confessed dramatist and liar. Wow, and I wonder if I think I will take him seriously.
Alright, you're almost there. Now imagine you actually had an interest in science and avoiding potential extinctions of the human race, and someone kept ranting about how it isn't possible, how all off these cherry picked examples where horribly wrong, and no matter what was said to them they continued to pick examples that very few people had any interest in defending. How seriously would you take them? Because really, you're like halfway to actually being able to look at the issue without the hyperbol.
-
Have to agree with fat_boy on this. WTF are you trying to say?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Seems to be a wonderful example of why you shouldn't post before you're awake. But roughly, how seriously would you take someone who rants about every slightest thing that fits their views of what the opposition 'really is'.
Distind wrote:
But roughly, how seriously would you take someone who rants about every slightest thing that fits their views of what the opposition 'really is'.
If you think the writer of the piece is ranting I agree, I also dont care. I amd not going to take hime seriously, but his writing is ammusing. What I DO take seriously is the subject of his rantings.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
What you mean as opposed to the 98% of stuff that you post coming from agw sites proving you right?
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
-
Your comments are based on an article that is based on a summary that is based on a peer-reviewed article. What, was the summary article too difficult for you to understand? You actually need some other blogger to interpret a summary article for you? Hahahaha! That's hilarious. Thank goodness you have people who can tell you how to think about an article that you never read.
- F
Still waiting for a comback from you. Whats up, havent got one? Still hiding eh? What a disfunctional little person you must be to insult me then run away rather than discussing the facts. You really are a fool you know. You really are incapable of thinking for yourself. A scientist tells you its warming because of CO2 (after he said it was cooling because of CO2) and you believe him. You just buy in to the whole thing without any critical thought whatsoever. What a pathetic drip you are.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
You thought it WOULDNT be a whitewash?
Nope. I didn't say that. I just brought it to your attention. Nothing more. Nothing less. That way, you can rant and rave about it 'till your heart's content. Its contents do not trouble me one way or t'other.
I just thought you might have done so. To me it was obvious it would be, there is no way they could have seriously damaged GW; too many people have too much invested, but, the whole episode has not gone unnoticed and public support for GW is on the floor, particularly following some cold years.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription