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.
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.

__________________
http://real-democracy.co.uk | Admin and proud

The commonality of mankind:
If you prick us, do we not bleed?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh?
If you poison us, do we not die?

Poptech

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.

Same page not consecutive names.

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.

BonnieDundee

Well and Poptech clearly. But he is a .

__________________
"It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state."
-Bruce Schneier

How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and p*ss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.
Edward Abbey

Leopold Kohr.

BonnieDundee

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

Shut up .
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.

__________________
"It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state."
-Bruce Schneier

How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and p*ss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.
Edward Abbey

Leopold Kohr.

Besoeker

[quote=Poptech;497162]Same page not consecutive names.[quote]
Read it again.
What is is evident is that not a single science degree is listed despite it being a mandatory requirement.
Yet may be designated as MD..........

Poptech

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

Is this all you got left?

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.

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

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

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

Humour me reiterate them

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


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

__________________
"That government is best which governs least."
"This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
"To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."

Besoeker

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?

Speculation without a rational basis.

BonnieDundee

Poptech equals

He lies and can't seem to read webpages.

__________________
"It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state."
-Bruce Schneier

How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and p*ss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.
Edward Abbey

Leopold Kohr.

Britannist

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?