Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) (uk.sci.weather) For the discussion of daily weather events, chiefly affecting the UK and adjacent parts of Europe, both past and predicted. The discussion is open to all, but contributions on a practical scientific level are encouraged. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#13
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. -- Spike 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? Keith (Southend) |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#15
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#16
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#17
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 9:12:26 AM UTC, Spike wrote:
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 I kept out of this until now as my views are well known on USW, and the thread was sadly deteriorating. However, as someone involved with the subject you have raised (I have an autistic daughter), to attack someone with conviction because she is aspergic has crossed a line for me. People with aspergers are typically of above average intelligence and tend to focus on 1 subject, Chris Packham is a well known example. So they are worth listening to. To dismiss her so rather displays a side of you I hadn't spotted before. Graham Penzance |
#18
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 09:12:31 +0000
Spike wrote: 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. People have variously described you as petty, spiteful, and bitter, Burt. And, in just one post, you've demonstrated all three descriptors to be accurate - classy. Well done, Burt! P.S. I bet Greta could get a diplomatic passport, if she wanted one, Burt. |
#19
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 06/01/2020 10:46, Graham Easterling wrote:
On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 9:12:26 AM UTC, Spike wrote: On 05/01/2020 12:02, Keith Harris wrote: 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. I kept out of this until now as my views are well known on USW, and the thread was sadly deteriorating. The thread started to deteriorate when Paul Garvey posted a link to Spencer's page and said "There's always one". However, as someone involved with the subject you have raised (I have an autistic daughter), to attack someone with conviction because she is aspergic has crossed a line for me. People with aspergers are typically of above average intelligence and tend to focus on 1 subject, Chris Packham is a well known example. So they are worth listening to. I didn't attack her, but merely noted characteristics that in turn have been mentioned by her supporters, such as the following from the family's book: "After years of depression, eating disorders, and anxiety attacks, she finally receives a medical diagnosis: Asperger’s syndrome, high-functioning autism, and OCD. She also suffers from selective mutism—which explains why she sometimes can’t speak to anyone outside her closest family". The book is available on Amazon, if you don't already have a copy. But in any case convictions are quite irrelevant here. This is not a religion, it is a scientific subject. To dismiss her so rather displays a side of you I hadn't spotted before. I doubt she could offer any scientific-based comment or insight more significant than "We need that line to bend down" into the data or analysis contained in Spencer's graph, which was the point of my comment that was pushed to one side in the rush to condemn. Once upon a time the climate change industry used science to put forward their case. The wheels fell off that wagon when it became obvious that the models on which so much apparently depended did not predict anything that had occurred in the real world. Consequently, the perception-management of the issue moved to the political/emotive sphere, where it is now fronted as described. It appears that the believers cannot or will not discuss science that appears to be off-message, especially if that threatens to challenge their cherished beliefs - as has been so clearly demonstrated in this thread. -- Spike |
#20
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 9:24:17 AM UTC, Spike wrote:
On 06/01/2020 10:46, Graham Easterling wrote: On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 9:12:26 AM UTC, Spike wrote: On 05/01/2020 12:02, Keith Harris wrote: 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. I kept out of this until now as my views are well known on USW, and the thread was sadly deteriorating. The thread started to deteriorate when Paul Garvey posted a link to Spencer's page and said "There's always one". However, as someone involved with the subject you have raised (I have an autistic daughter), to attack someone with conviction because she is aspergic has crossed a line for me. People with aspergers are typically of above average intelligence and tend to focus on 1 subject, Chris Packham is a well known example. So they are worth listening to. I didn't attack her, but merely noted characteristics that in turn have been mentioned by her supporters, such as the following from the family's book: "After years of depression, eating disorders, and anxiety attacks, she finally receives a medical diagnosis: Asperger’s syndrome, high-functioning autism, and OCD. She also suffers from selective mutism—which explains why she sometimes can’t speak to anyone outside her closest family". The book is available on Amazon, if you don't already have a copy. But in any case convictions are quite irrelevant here. This is not a religion, it is a scientific subject. To dismiss her so rather displays a side of you I hadn't spotted before.. I doubt she could offer any scientific-based comment or insight more significant than "We need that line to bend down" into the data or analysis contained in Spencer's graph, which was the point of my comment that was pushed to one side in the rush to condemn. Once upon a time the climate change industry used science to put forward their case. The wheels fell off that wagon when it became obvious that the models on which so much apparently depended did not predict anything that had occurred in the real world. Consequently, the perception-management of the issue moved to the political/emotive sphere, where it is now fronted as described. It appears that the believers cannot or will not discuss science that appears to be off-message, especially if that threatens to challenge their cherished beliefs - as has been so clearly demonstrated in this thread. -- Spike What has been 'clearly demonstrated' is denial of what we clearly face. Good luck pushing your case. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
deg F in Summer and deg C in Winter | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
"Break the Grip of the Rip" National Campaign Kicks-Off | Latest News | |||
Rip currents kill more people than tornados, hurricanes, and lightning. | Latest News | |||
NOAA Highlights The Dangers Of Deadly Rip Currents | Latest News | |||
Davis Weather station accessory pricing Rip off | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) |