Global Warming Fraud-Journalist James Delingpole

[Vidi]

That currently being discussed is the supposed infallibility of scientists....Which is pure pap....Scientists have been wrong at least as much as they've been right, whomsoever discovering so is notwithstanding.

Care to go for the pinhead pick six?

Oooh HAT TRICK! A perfect fail! Congradulations!

Now go back and read the post I originally quoted and see if you can find your error.

I could do it for you...but give a man a fish, teach a man to fish, blah blah blah.

 

[Oddball]

Blablablabla...

You win the interwebs!...Here's your trophy....

 

[Vidi]

Blablablabla...

You win the interwebs!...Here's your trophy....

awwwwww....so cute. Was it modeled after you?

Id like to thank God and all the little people who contributed to this award. The very very very little people. Oddball to be specific.

Thank you.

 

[Oddball]

Well, I guess that leaves you free to go bite the pillow for Michael Mann.

Have fun.

 

[Vidi]

​

Well, I guess that leaves you free to go bite the pillow for Michael Mann.

Have fun.

awww...now youre just sulking

 

[skookerasbil]

I have to laugh..........the k00ks always reference "computer models" forcasting stuff 50 years from now...........as if it was a fait-acompli that the "computer models" would be accurate!! The same models that predicted a huge surge in Cat 5 hurricanes following Kartina!!

Fuckers cant even tell us where the **** a hurricane is going 48 hours out...............

LAUGH MY BALLS OFF




Its all about upping the ante on the level of hysterical. Make a million preditions on "computer models" related to catastophic weather.............be right once or twice and reference the prediction. Whats fascinating is the environmental k00ks buy into this shit hook, line and stinker.




Skooks exposing the ruse..............as usual.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[code1211]

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.

Right...Because we know that scientists have never been wrong...

Like Fred Hoyle....erm...no...

Like Johann Belcher...ummm...nope...

Alchemists?...Yeah, right...

Speed of light the cosmic speed limit?...uh-uh...

Oh, never mind!

And they have always been proven wrong by who?

Other scientists...hmmmm..?

So your thesis is that even when the evidence accessible by anyone is in opposition to the dogmatic line of the scientists that you prefer to follow, you still need to believe the scientists.

Without question.

Does this sound more like science or more like religion?

Let's see...

Where's that little bell?

 

[Vidi]

Right...Because we know that scientists have never been wrong...

Like Fred Hoyle....erm...no...

Like Johann Belcher...ummm...nope...

Alchemists?...Yeah, right...

Speed of light the cosmic speed limit?...uh-uh...

Oh, never mind!

And they have always been proven wrong by who?

Other scientists...hmmmm..?

So your thesis is that even when the evidence accessible by anyone is in opposition to the dogmatic line of the scientists that you prefer to follow, you still need to believe the scientists.

Without question.

Does this sound more like science or more like religion?

Let's see...

Where's that little bell?

If I want to expert advice about music, I talk to a musician. If I want to expert adviceabout cars, I consult a mechanic. If I want expert advice, I talk to a chef. If i want expert advice on medicine, I consult a doctor.


I dont decide to ignore all of them and consult a shaman.

and as far as the "journalist" knowing more than the scientists?

In one he explains that he never reads peer-reviewed scientific literature on the subject of global warming because "it's not my job". In the other, he condemns the scientific consensus on global warming – and consensus in general – as unscientific.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/jan/25/horizon-science-under-attack-review

So heres a guy who refuses to READ the peer reviewed literature but makes claims he knows better than ALL of them. And he is credible?

Does that sound more like science or religion?

 

[code1211]

And they have always been proven wrong by who?

Other scientists...hmmmm..?

So your thesis is that even when the evidence accessible by anyone is in opposition to the dogmatic line of the scientists that you prefer to follow, you still need to believe the scientists.

Without question.

Does this sound more like science or more like religion?

Let's see...

Where's that little bell?

If I want to expert advice about music, I talk to a musician. If I want to expert adviceabout cars, I consult a mechanic. If I want expert advice, I talk to a chef. If i want expert advice on medicine, I consult a doctor.


I dont decide to ignore all of them and consult a shaman.

Would you consult just any musician, chef, mechanic or doctor?

Since I have played a guitar, I could be called a musician. You might want to taste that gumbo before you ask for the recipe. Malpractice is an ugly word and an uglier practice, but is rarely performed by those outside of the medical community. I've searched long and hard to find a mechanic I can trust. Most of us have.

The point is, you are accepting the conclusions of the agenda driven.

The best available data points to a temperate rise of 0.7 degrees in 2000 years. The rise has actually slowed over the last 1000 years compared to the previous 1000 years.

The ocean is supposed to have risen a vertical 8 inches since 1900 and yet the great coastal cities of the world are not under water. I've asked to have photographic evidence presented to show the dramatic rise of the ocean and nobody has supplied it.

The boat houses used as shelter by the ill fated residents of Herculaneum are far enough from the Mediteranean Shore to make their purpose questionable. Why hasn't the ocean engulfed them after 2000 years of sea level rise?

You can use your blind, robotic allegiance to your belief system or you can use your brain.

If you would be happy in your Faith, be not, therefore, a solver of riddles.

 

[westwall]

And they have always been proven wrong by who?

Other scientists...hmmmm..?

So your thesis is that even when the evidence accessible by anyone is in opposition to the dogmatic line of the scientists that you prefer to follow, you still need to believe the scientists.

Without question.

Does this sound more like science or more like religion?

Let's see...

Where's that little bell?

If I want to expert advice about music, I talk to a musician. If I want to expert adviceabout cars, I consult a mechanic. If I want expert advice, I talk to a chef. If i want expert advice on medicine, I consult a doctor.


I dont decide to ignore all of them and consult a shaman.

and as far as the "journalist" knowing more than the scientists?

In one he explains that he never reads peer-reviewed scientific literature on the subject of global warming because "it's not my job". In the other, he condemns the scientific consensus on global warming – and consensus in general – as unscientific.

Horizon: Science Under Attack and Tool Academy | TV review | Television & radio | The Guardian

So heres a guy who refuses to READ the peer reviewed literature but makes claims he knows better than ALL of them. And he is credible?

Does that sound more like science or religion?

First off you must disabuse yourself of the fantasy that climatologists peer review their studies. They don't. They Pal review them and that is why you have a "science" (and boy do I use that term lightly here) that has devolved to the point that it is now non falsifiable.

The AGW supporters claim BOTH sides of the prediction. GW is going to cause less rain. It's going to cause more rain. It's going to cause more major storms, it's going to cause less storms. No snow, more snow etc. etc. etc. And, just so you know, these are all positions taken by the AGW supporters AND they were ALL peer reviewed studies.

That is not science, that is pseudo science. In other words AGW theory is no better than astrology.

 

[skookerasbil]

yuk..........yuk...........

Institute for Energy Research | Abundant Natural Gas Means Low Prices, Increased Trade Potential

 

[skookerasbil]

Cult of Global Warming Is Losing Influence - Rasmussen Reports™




Ooooooooooops!!!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

James Delingpole - SourceWatch

Delingpole has an MA in English Language and Literature from Oxford University. He does not appear to have any science qualifications.

Anti-science views on climate change
In a 2009 article on the CRU email theft, Delingpole called anthropogenic climate change a "myth" and a "conspiracy".[2]
In his writing and media appearances, Delingpole regularly expresses a viewpoint that man-made climate change is not as extensive as it is described in the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, and has linked mainstream scientific projections concerning climate change with "the atavistic impulse which leads generation after generation to believe it is the chosen one: the generation so special that it and it alone will be the one privileged to experience the end of the world; and the generation so egotistical that it imagines itself largely responsible for that imminent destruction".
When Anderegg et al published their paper on expert credibility in climate change in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Delingpole countered with the headline 'Climate change sceptics have smaller members, uglier wives, dumber kids' says new study made up by warmists'[3]
Delingpole is keen on coining terms to advance his theories. He uses the term 'ManBearPig' to parody climate science. Whilst fellow Telegraph writer Christopher Booker credits Delingpole with coining the term 'climategate'.[4]
Delingpole is quick to claim imbalance is at work , sometimes going to great lengths to make the suggestion. Criticizing Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute Delingpole fulminates " He is as entitled to speak out on “Climate Change” as I – a mere Oxford Eng Lit grad blogger and hack – am. But note, pray, one key difference. If ever I am called to debate about climate change on the BBC or wherever I will always be introduced as a climate change “sceptic.” " Delingpole goes on to lament that Ward's superior qualifications and scientific background are "thus lending him an aura of dignity, neutrality and lofty expertise he simply doesn’t merit." [5] To his regular readers this may seem balanced but the fact is that no scientific institution of national standing now endorses Mr Delingpole's creed of scepticism of anthropogenic global warming.

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/

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

 

[westwall]

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.

Who cares what they say olfraud. They generate their funding based on how big their lies are. The more they lie the more money they get from the taxpayers. Amazing how when it's Ratheon or General Dynamics doing it you are all anti military industrial complex.

Here it is in the world of academia and you're so blind you either can't see the comparison or you are benefitting from it. Either way, they, and you are wrong. Religion by any name should not receive public monies.

 

[westwall]

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.

Yes, they do throw temper tantrums don't they.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[Oddball]

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 made the same observation that Crichton did years before....A shame I'm not anywhere near the writer he is.

Long and the short of it is that you really don't need all the confusing data and "facts" slung around by the AGW cargo cultists...It's the construct and thematic stricture of their fable that gives them clean away as the charlatans that they are.