Clippo

Lets just look at the facts in this thread. I simply responded to the personal jibe by mpkdavies, who, I’m fairly certain knows from past exchanges, that I have a BSc (Hons) & higher degree in a practical science subject.

I asked him if he knew how the person in the link was ‘qualified’ to make the allegations that he did.

And by the way of a snipe back at mpkdavies I asked him what his ‘qualifications’ were to pretend to be such an authority on GW. (I suspect he has a computing qualification but at what level I do not know).

So, essentially this was a personal exchange into which rjt essentially interjected – in post 10 he exposed his own inferiority complex about his own qualification – and which harks back to :-
A totally Personal Post
This post is the announcement to the forum that rjt had been awarded a BA(Hons) from the OU.

To set the record unequivocally straight, I here reproduce the relevant posts in that thread :

Post #10
Post # 32 rjt
Post #33 Clippo
Post#34 rjt
Post #58 rjt

The postings in# between 34 and 58 and some after illustrate the classic Britannist and rjt problem – their paranoid suspicions about posters who don’t mention the evil EU in every post.

Now, to make it crystal clear, I will say again to rjt:-

Congratulations on getting your BA(Hons). Reading between the lines I suspect that this has resulted from a very special and dedicated effort on your part and you thoroughly deserve it.

In no way do I denigrate your degree. From the evidence above, I suggest it is you who has assumed (incorrectly) that I have. I also know that we have had other exchanges on similar lines but I honestly don't think I have denigrated your degree. If you can show me where I have, I will honestly apologise. I will try to explain, in a different way, why you may be mistaken in thinking that I do :-

I have said many times that when anyone offers an opinion on a subject, I try to assess their ‘qualification’ (& not necessarily academic if the subject isn’t academic), for making those statements.

As a scientist, (yes I am and I have several peer-reviewed publications to my name but I’m not going to tell you Davies), it is perfectly natural for me to pay more attention to opinions of people with recognised scientific qualifications or long practical experience, than to believe without question somebody who hasn’t a recognised qualification or experience in that or closely related subjects.
( I do accept that there are a few gifted individuals who may not have true qualifications or even experience but who can pick up the salient features of any debate).

However, if you don’t understand clearly my implication in the last paragraph, a simple example :-
I personally would not consider it to be very credible if a Roman Catholic priest offered me marriage guidance counselling.

So now to the GW debate. A dozen or more sciences have / are contributed(ing) to the GW phenomenon. To persuade me that a person is making a credible point, it helps enormously if they have an accepted qualification / practical experience in any of those sciences or even have previously demonstrated a reliable interest in those subjects.

I have to say bluntly, rjt, that your BA(Hons) is a weakness in this debate – however, if you were to debate, say, ‘cities in ancient times ….., I would take particular cognisance of your views.

I note that mpkdavies has declined to answer my question and I can only imagine what Britannist’s qualifications might be (if he has any).

Finally, for now, you, rjt, and Hartlepool, have freely admitted that you are Creationists. By that I am assuming you believe that God created the Earth and it’s life approx 6,000 years ago. If that is so, can you not see how that belief disqualifies you from making any comment that can believed by most scientists and most other religions, on almost any scientific subject ?