On 05/01/2020 12:02, Keith Harris wrote:
On Sunday, 5 January 2020 11:01:47 UTC, 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 Spike'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.
All it's doing is just delaying action and as each year goes by it is just getting progressively worse. We can see what's happening around the world, how bad has it got to get?
"It" appears to have got bad enough that the climate catastrophe
industry now has to be fronted by a schoolgirl variously described as
Aspergic, OCD-suffering, and depressive, rather than in this case by
scientists proving that their climate models have finally matched the
reality.
--
Spike