Global Warming Fraud-Journalist James Delingpole

Old Rocks worries about credentials when he doesnt agree with the person but he didnt seem to have any problem with putting non-scientists on the board of the AGU 'cause he likes what they say.
 
non elected non-scientists that were put on the board at the president's discretion because he had an agenda to push
 
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/

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.
 
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.
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.
 
Are these non-scientist members giving presentations concerning science? No, they are not.

actually Chris Mooney just released "The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality". he makes rdean seem sane.
 
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.

No. I did not accuse "the whole of the scientific community of fraud". Neither did Delingpole. That idea, as any sane person can see, exists nowhere but in your fevered brain. Hence, I am not bound to present any evidence in support of it. As for the fraudulent, politically driven science of some: that is self-evident. As for the instances of scientists messaging the data: those are well-documented . . . in the admissions of the perpetrators themselves.

Sorry. It would appear that you are the only one making things up. It is you who provides no evidence of the same.

Thanks for playing.
 
Last edited:
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 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?
 
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.
 
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.





I knew Feynman, he had nothing but contempt for assholes like this, and yes they existed way back then too..in Einsteins time as well...
 
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 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.

Drop in world temperatures fuels global warming debate
 
Last edited:
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.



In light of the failure to predict climate based on their theory and the failure to show the sea level rise they say has occurred and the failure to demonstrate a consistent correlation between the rise of CO2 and the rise (and fall) of temperature, the real question is:

Why have no Scientific Societies challenged AGW?

If the evidence is nonexistent and the belief is firm, is this science or religion?
 
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.



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.
 
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.

hmmm...

•B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa
•M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa
•Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa

NASA GISS: James E. Hansen



Point taken
 
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.

fair enough. Between you and Code I see the point you all are making. I dont neccessarily agree, mind you, but I accept your point as valid.
 

Forum List

Back
Top