Weather Banter - View Single Post

Jim[_7_] · January 5th 20, 06:02 PM posted to uk.sci.weather

On Sun, 5 Jan 2020 11:01:50 +0000
Spike wrote:

On 05/01/2020 10:30, wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 9:14:43 PM UTC, Jim wrote:

Why not present some of this "overwhelming evidence" to counter
Burt's point above?

Jim. There's so much. Start with the IPCC, move on to NASA, UEA,
The Tyndall Centre etc. and then to almost every other nations'
national scientific associations' comments and publications. I've
presented lots on here before, but I'm just not prepared to for an
anonymous denier any more. Those people's views are finished, but
the same, very few, dinosaurs that were the same dinosaurs 10 years
ago still chirp. No-one's listening. The scientific world moved on,
past them, years ago now. Why I seldom comment these days. Others,
far better placed, already have.

Time for actions, not denials.

What an appalling philosophy. It's little better than sticking your
head in a bucket.

Just where do you think such an approach would have led had the
phlogistonists 'won' their case against the phlogiston deniers? Or the
microcosmic-salt supporters against the synthesisers? Or the 'chlorine
is a compound' believers against the 'chlorine is an element'
supporters?

It is exactly why the discrepancies shown in Spencer's work - and
remember, it isn't his data, you still have to deal with that - have
to be explored scientifically rather than the emotive approach of
nailing him to a tree and sticking a garden fork in his abdomen
because you don't like what he says.

You tell him, Burt!

They've got no answers for you, Burt.