Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. Other Discussions
  3. The Back Room
  4. So the Arctic was going to be ice free in 5 years, that was back in 2007. Now its obvious thats not the case, its now 2016.

So the Arctic was going to be ice free in 5 years, that was back in 2007. Now its obvious thats not the case, its now 2016.

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Back Room
questionannouncementcareerworkspace
21 Posts 3 Posters 59 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • R riced

    fat_boy wrote:

    OK, have it your way. The world is going down the pan due to CO2.

    Where did I say that? All I have tried to do is point out that judging by your posts: 1 You have prejudge issues instead of recognizing that climatology is a relatively new discipline and as such will be subject to debates that at times will be acrimonious. That's typical of science. 2 You seem to have some notion that there are scientific 'truths' that are never subject to revision. 3 You resort to personal abuse in an attempt to refute others' points of view (which is ironic given your sig). 4 When substantive points are made that undermine yours you throw in distractions that are not relevant. 5 You make extravagant claims that lack grounds and are often patently wrong. 6 You impute beliefs and conclusions to others that cannot be derived from what they say. 7 You attempt to show weakness as strength such as when you claimed that you were 'blunt' (presumably meant to be positive) when I pointed out these things in a previous thread. As I've said before, that's how you come across. Unfortunately that means that people ignore what you say because they see these defects. You might argue that people should pay attention to what you say rather than how yo say it (cf the Feynman quote). While I have a great deal of sympathy with Feynman's view, I also recognise that that is not in fact how the world operates. Reputation does count, at least in the short term. Many perfectly sound theories have been dismissed, only to be shown to be valid at a later time, just because some leading authority in the field has rubbished them. Conversely, many a dead theory has been kept alive artificially because some leading authority espoused them. Science makes progress by, eventually, recognising when this has happened by adopting or rejecting the theory as appropriate. And that progress comes as a result of debate, which is often acrimonious and protracted.

    Regards David R --------------------------------------------------------------- "Every program eventually becomes rococo, and then rubble." - Alan Perlis The only valid measurement of code quality: WTFs/minute.

    L Offline
    L Offline
    Lost User
    wrote on last edited by
    #21

    :) What a crappy medium writing is eh?

    Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes


    • Login

    • Don't have an account? Register

    • Login or register to search.
    • First post
      Last post
    0
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • World
    • Users
    • Groups