Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He's a journalist who concentrates on uncovering fraudulent, politically driven "science". He doesn't need any scientific credentials in order to recognize and report on the same. Neither do I.
Lets see...SCIENTISTS vs Non Scientists in a scientific debate...whos credible in that scenario?
ding ding ding!
SCIENTISTS!!!!
Thank you for playing we have some lovely parting gifts for you.
Actually . . .
*ding ding ding*
I addressed that: namely, the politicization of science. Are you just pretending not to understand? In any event, it doesn't take a scientist to recognize that catastrophic global warming theory is not just factually wrong, but nothing more than the eco-socialism of global wealth redistribution, especially with regard to the mythical consensus, the ridiculous claim that the science is settled. It does, however, take a dupe to go for it.
Global Warming, the Politicization of Science and Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/mythical-consensus/
must spread rep around first!
The mechanic can disassemble to your squeaking brake and explain to you, in clear and unambiguous terms that a child of 6 can understand, why it is that you need new brakes....He doesn't need to bring in another bunch of crony mechanics to "peer review" his explanation.Lets see...SCIENTISTS vs Non Scientists in a scientific debate...whos credible in that scenario?
ding ding ding!
SCIENTISTS!!!!
Thank you for playing we have some lovely parting gifts for you.
Actually . . .
*ding ding ding*
I addressed that: namely, the politicization of science. Are you just pretending not to understand? In any event, it doesn't take a scientist to recognize that catastrophic global warming theory is not just factually wrong, but nothing more than the eco-socialism of global wealth redistribution, especially with regard to the mythical consensus, the ridiculous claim that the science is settled. It does, however, take a dupe to go for it.
Global Warming, the Politicization of Science and Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/mythical-consensus/
I understand perfectly well. I even agree with your disdain for the politiczation of science.
I do however disagree that someone without the education and knoweldge in the field is qualified to debunk it.
If my car needs work, I dont take it to the butcher, I take it to the mechanic.
Are these non-scientist members giving presentations concerning science? No, they are not.
Are these non-scientist members giving presentations concerning science? No, they are not.
By the way, folks, Old Rocks subtracted rep from me for this post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-journalist-james-delingpole.html#post5198775
How dare one express an opposing view! I never take rep, only give it. Argue it out on the board.
*EDIT*
Also, that's the forth time someone has taken rep from me in less than a week. In every instance they were leftists. In every instance, they took rep for non-combative, matter-of-fact statements of disagreement.
He's a journalist who concentrates on uncovering fraudulent, politically driven "science". He doesn't need any scientific credentials in order to recognize and report on the same. Neither do I.
__________________
That is your statement. You accuse the whole of the scientific community of fraud, yet do not present any evidence other than the word of a 'journalist'. That is non-combative?
He is a liar, as are you.
The mechanic can disassemble to your squeaking brake and explain to you, in clear and unambiguous terms that a child of 6 can understand, why it is that you need new brakes....He doesn't need to bring in another bunch of crony mechanics to "peer review" his explanation.Actually . . .
*ding ding ding*
I addressed that: namely, the politicization of science. Are you just pretending not to understand? In any event, it doesn't take a scientist to recognize that catastrophic global warming theory is not just factually wrong, but nothing more than the eco-socialism of global wealth redistribution, especially with regard to the mythical consensus, the ridiculous claim that the science is settled. It does, however, take a dupe to go for it.
Global Warming, the Politicization of Science and Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/mythical-consensus/
I understand perfectly well. I even agree with your disdain for the politiczation of science.
I do however disagree that someone without the education and knoweldge in the field is qualified to debunk it.
If my car needs work, I dont take it to the butcher, I take it to the mechanic.
Try again.
Try comparing apples to apples, rather than with aircraft carriers.
Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, "Is it reasonable?"
~ Richard Feynman - A guy who was one fuck of a lot smarter than you.
The mechanic can disassemble to your squeaking brake and explain to you, in clear and unambiguous terms that a child of 6 can understand, why it is that you need new brakes....He doesn't need to bring in another bunch of crony mechanics to "peer review" his explanation.I understand perfectly well. I even agree with your disdain for the politiczation of science.
I do however disagree that someone without the education and knoweldge in the field is qualified to debunk it.
If my car needs work, I dont take it to the butcher, I take it to the mechanic.
Try again.
try explaining superstring theory to a 6 year old. Science is a bit different. I thought I was using a 6 year old analogy to make the point. Not an insult, just exhaustion with this subject.
Look find me actual scientists, that arent being funded by big polluting corporations, that deny global climate change, and Ill listen intently. But Im not taking the word of some journalist who claims he doesnt even bother to read the papers he's busy trying to debunk.
Seriously?
Well let's see. How many Scientific Socities challenge AGW? How many state that AGW is a fact? How many National Academies of Science challenge AGW? How many state that it is a fact? How many major Universities challenge AGW? How many state that it is a fact?
So we have a bunch of flap yaps here stating that non-scientists presenting no evidence for their idiotic views are equal to scientists that have done studies on all the various issues concerning the present warming of the planet by anthropogenic GHGs.
Are these non-scientist members giving presentations concerning science? No, they are not.
Lets see...SCIENTISTS vs Non Scientists in a scientific debate...whos credible in that scenario?
ding ding ding!
SCIENTISTS!!!!
Thank you for playing we have some lovely parting gifts for you.
Actually . . .
*ding ding ding*
I addressed that: namely, the politicization of science. Are you just pretending not to understand? In any event, it doesn't take a scientist to recognize that catastrophic global warming theory is not just factually wrong, but nothing more than the eco-socialism of global wealth redistribution, especially with regard to the mythical consensus, the ridiculous claim that the science is settled. It does, however, take a dupe to go for it.
Global Warming, the Politicization of Science and Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/mythical-consensus/
I understand perfectly well. I even agree with your disdain for the politiczation of science.
I do however disagree that someone without the education and knoweldge in the field is qualified to debunk it.
If my car needs work, I dont take it to the butcher, I take it to the mechanic.
Actually . . .
*ding ding ding*
I addressed that: namely, the politicization of science. Are you just pretending not to understand? In any event, it doesn't take a scientist to recognize that catastrophic global warming theory is not just factually wrong, but nothing more than the eco-socialism of global wealth redistribution, especially with regard to the mythical consensus, the ridiculous claim that the science is settled. It does, however, take a dupe to go for it.
Global Warming, the Politicization of Science and Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/mythical-consensus/
I understand perfectly well. I even agree with your disdain for the politiczation of science.
I do however disagree that someone without the education and knoweldge in the field is qualified to debunk it.
If my car needs work, I dont take it to the butcher, I take it to the mechanic.
The country's most respected expert on the topic of Global Warming is Dr. James Hansen.
From which university did he earn his Doctorate in Climatology. Warning: This is a trick question.
The mechanic can disassemble to your squeaking brake and explain to you, in clear and unambiguous terms that a child of 6 can understand, why it is that you need new brakes....He doesn't need to bring in another bunch of crony mechanics to "peer review" his explanation.
Try again.
try explaining superstring theory to a 6 year old. Science is a bit different. I thought I was using a 6 year old analogy to make the point. Not an insult, just exhaustion with this subject.
Look find me actual scientists, that arent being funded by big polluting corporations, that deny global climate change, and Ill listen intently. But Im not taking the word of some journalist who claims he doesnt even bother to read the papers he's busy trying to debunk.
Seriously?
Actually, I do not necessarily have a problem with the idea that human generated CO2 emissions may contribute to any given warming trend, including the most recent. But it is clear that we are now back into a cooling trend, not headed for any catastrophic episode. The latter is the hysterics of grant hounds and political tyrants.
But even if there were a real threat, the sort of measures proposed by the eco-socialists would not solve the problem at all. Instead, they would cripple the economies of the world, impose frightful hardships and loses of liberty. They would destroy the very engine that generates the technological advances that could effectively address the problem.