Waiting for Global Cooling still

**Akria** · 05-05-2008 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by g hall

Perhaps like me he didn't believe you
Also McIntyre who found it also caused some rapid change of heart in the GISS datasets

The things I pointed out are inherent in the graphs themselves - they are not things which are open to interpretation, they are not disputable unless you have funny eyesight.
They concern the difference in scales and in geographic area, so in future I suggest you read what is placed before your eyes instead of simply subscribing to your fantasy world in which the recent change in climate has been caused by non-existent and often contradictory natural factors, in which computer models are without exception garbage unless they show what you want them to show, in which there is no reason, no questioning, just the blind acceptance of other's words you claim to fight against!

It's clear that you don't actually check your allies' posts for inaccuracies; instead you simply accept it all as true because it supports your view!

For heaven's sake, someone, give me sceptics who have a little reason, who have a little intelligence! Sceptics who will actually check the posts of their fellows for inaccuracies, or who will actually read things before commenting on them!

Your reply would only have been OK if you'd actually read the post I was referring to and if it had contained something which was debatable. However, unfortunately for your pretences at reading something, it didn't. YOU CANNOT DEBATE THE SCALES OF A GRAPH OR A GEOGRAPHIC REGION IT APPLIES TO WHEN THESE ARE ON THE GRAPHS THEMSELVES.

**Poptech** · 06-05-2008 02:45 AM

Originally Posted by zbrahead

You cant prove it, but lets hear it anyway. Go on little boy, dont be shy

.

Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, February 2005)
"Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shape"

There you go little girl don't cry too hard after you have been spanked. For the computer illiterate among us that means that when you fed Mann's program junk data it still produced a hockey stick shape. In essence he wrote the program to get the answer he wanted no matter what the data actually showed.

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Nope.
Same page as you used.
Consecutive names.
No cherry picking.

Same page not consecutive names.

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Finegood.
Why not designate someone as a MS if they are?
Particularly if they have a science degree - a stipulated requirement.

Probably because they didn't want to so they could save space. I think we have established what is and what is not listed. They clearly stated all names have a physical science degree you have yet to prove otherwise.

**Wessexman** · 06-05-2008 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by g hall

Do you think only politicians spin ?

Well and Poptech clearly. But he is a

.

**Wessexman** · 06-05-2008 03:27 AM

A piece of paper signed by 13 presidents of scientific societies represents the opinion of those 13 signers. So please prove me wrong and provide evidence of a poll or survey of EVERY member that supports each signer's position. If you do not have it then you have nothing but a political action which is meaningless for science.

Show me ID for all those names on the petition or get lost you

.

Keep calling me a troll and repeating your lies about Wikipedia because you cannot back up your dishonest position. Everyone here reading this can clearly see you have lost the Wikipedia debate.

Shut up

.

The names of the petition members are clearly listed. You don't have to accept it but you have yet to prove that what the petition states is false. Thus people can make up their own minds.

You mean how me and Alex showed you the rules of wikipedia which were clearly listed but you can't seem to read them?

Get back under your bridge.

**Besoeker** · 06-05-2008 06:29 AM

[quote=Poptech;497162]Same page not consecutive names.[quote]
Read it again.

John R Ackerman, Gene Ackerman, William Ackerman, Richard E. Ackermann

Originally Posted by Poptech

I think we have established what is and what is not listed.

What is is evident is that not a single science degree is listed despite it being a mandatory requirement.

Originally Posted by Poptech

They clearly stated all names have a physical science degree......

Yet may be designated as MD..........

**Poptech** · 06-05-2008 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee

Show me ID for all those names on the petition or get lost you

Go look them up yourself and prove they are not real scientists.

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee

Shut up

.

Is this all you got left?

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee

You mean how me and Alex showed you the rules of wikipedia which were clearly listed but you can't seem to read them? Get back under your bridge.

I have read the rules for Wikipedia and the answers to my questions were NOT listed please stop lying

All you do is keep lying over and over and cannot prove me wrong. You lost so bad thanks playing come again next time.

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Same page not consecutive names.

Not consecutive from where I was. This is still irrelevant as it does not disprove they are real scientists.

Originally Posted by Besoeker

What is is evident is that not a single science degree is listed despite it being a mandatory requirement.

Speaker of the obvious, this is still irrelevant as it does not disprove they are real scientists.

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Yet may be designated as MD..........

If they are a MEDICAL DOCTOR. And again for god knows how many times now they most likely did this so no one could say all the undesignated names were MDs. They also clearly stated that all MDs have a phsyical science degree. You have nothing but repetition now. You have not disproven the petition invalid in anyway.

**g hall** · 06-05-2008 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Akria

The things I pointed out are inherent in the graphs themselves - they are not things which are open to interpretation, they are not disputable unless you have funny eyesight.

Humour me reiterate them

They concern the difference in scales and in geographic area, so in future I suggest you read what is placed before your eyes instead of simply subscribing to your fantasy world in which the recent change in climate has been caused by non-existent and often contradictory natural factors, in which computer models are without exception garbage unless they show what you want them to show, in which there is no reason, no questioning, just the blind acceptance of other's words you claim to fight against!

It's clear that you don't actually check your allies' posts for inaccuracies; instead you simply accept it all as true because it supports your view!

Could yoy try that again so it makes some kind of sense

For heaven's sake, someone, give me sceptics who have a little reason, who have a little intelligence! Sceptics who will actually check the posts of their fellows for inaccuracies, or who will actually read things before commenting on them!

Your reply would only have been OK if you'd actually read the post I was referring to and if it had contained something which was debatable. However, unfortunately for your pretences at reading something, it didn't. YOU CANNOT DEBATE THE SCALES OF A GRAPH OR A GEOGRAPHIC REGION IT APPLIES TO WHEN THESE ARE ON THE GRAPHS THEMSELVES.

That could equally apply to the MMGW protagonists

The best thing would be to say what you mean don't you think ?
and please be a bit more civil or I will forget my promise to Alex

**Besoeker** · 06-05-2008 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by Poptech

Not consecutive from where I was.[/quoted]
Listed alphabetically by surname Ackerman, Ackerman, Ackerman.......get it now? If not, no big deal.

Originally Posted by Poptech

this is still irrelevant as it does not disprove they are real scientists.

Sure. But failing to state science degrees, where appropriate and designating MD instead makes absolutely no sense. Even if a signatory has both. The science degree is THE requirement. Why not give that?

Originally Posted by Poptech

If they are a MEDICAL DOCTOR. And again for god knows how many times now they most likely did this so no one could say all the undesignated names were MDs.

Speculation without a rational basis.

**Wessexman** · 07-05-2008 07:46 AM

Poptech equals

He lies and can't seem to read webpages.

**Britannist** · 10-05-2008 10:05 PM

An interesting article by Sir Bernard Ingham, former adviser to Lady Thatcher (on the link given in the first posting to the following thread):

Bernard Ingham: Why on earth do we put up with this green extortion?

Thread: Waiting for Global Cooling still

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Sir Bernard Ingham

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions