• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Another Professor fired for telling the truth

Jack Hays said:
Ah. So you cherry-picked one paper out of 1,350+. What do you claim that proves?
My point is not so fragile. Shrinking sea ice extent is often cited by AGW advocates (including the IPCC) as a problem, if not a crisis. But if there was less sea ice, even open water, in the past then what we are seeing now is neither a problem nor a crisis. And the IPCC is indeed refuted.
Click to expand...

You clearly don't understand the concept of cherry-picking. The list of 1,350+ papers is not supposed to be a representative sample of papers. PoS stated that they are all papers that refute the IPCC consensus, but I have shown that at least one of them does not refute the IPCC consensus. Hence the assertion that all 1,350+ papers refute the IPCC consensus is shown to be false. It's really not difficult to understand the logic!
 
Surface Detail said:
You clearly don't understand the concept of cherry-picking. The list of 1,350+ papers is not supposed to be a representative sample of papers. PoS stated that they are all papers that refute the IPCC consensus, but I have shown that at least one of them does not refute the IPCC consensus. Hence the assertion that all 1,350+ papers refute the IPCC consensus is shown to be false. It's really not difficult to understand the logic!
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you showed no such thing. Even the paper you cherry-picked refutes the claim of a crisis in shrinking sea ice extent.
 
Surface Detail said:
Who are you referring to?
Click to expand...
World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency | BioScience | Oxford Academic

BBC article was based on this. And the supposed list of 11K scientists signing onto the study had Mickey Mouse and Dumbledore among its signatories...

Here is the co-author: Christopher Wolf - Wikipedia

Surface Detail said:
You clearly don't understand the concept of cherry-picking. The list of 1,350+ papers is not supposed to be a representative sample of papers. PoS stated that they are all papers that refute the IPCC consensus,
Click to expand...

Where did I say that all the papers refute the IPCC and only them? Youre lying again...
 
PoS said:
So? Studying one specialty for almost a decade doesnt make you an expert in another.



BS- you made the claim and its as clear as day what you meant.


So now youre saying that anyone who has a doctorate can be a climate expert without any training? My English teacher in high school got her doctorate in education so I guess that means everyone ought to listen to her predict the climate.

LOL keep digging that hole, pal. :lamo
Click to expand...



“So? Studying one specialty for almost a decade doesnt make you an expert in another.’

You continue to spread falsehood and misrepresent what I said. What I said relevant to the above statement of yours was:

“Climatology is a very new area of science. There are no solely "climatologist" PhDs. Most anybody with a relative background, like in the atmospheric sciences including physical geography, or maybe another Earth science, or even oceanography and biogeochemistry. It depends on what area you most study. A mathematician could be rightly called a climatologist if focusing their time on applying their expertise to climate.”

“BS- you made the claim and its as clear as day what you meant.”

It’s clear what I meant when the whole of what I stated is read. What exactly did I state that has you believe what, exactly?

“So now youre saying that anyone who has a doctorate can be a climate expert without any training? My English teacher in high school got her doctorate in education so I guess that means everyone ought to listen to her predict the climate.”

I’m not saying anything different “now” than before, per my own words quoted above from a prior post. Your misinterpretation belies your disingenuity and quite possibly your failure to comprehend the English language.

Quote what I said that is factually wrong.
 
bluesmoke said:
“So? Studying one specialty for almost a decade doesnt make you an expert in another.’

You continue to spread falsehood and misrepresent what I said. What I said relevant to the above statement of yours was:

“Climatology is a very new area of science. There are no solely "climatologist" PhDs. Most anybody with a relative background, like in the atmospheric sciences including physical geography, or maybe another Earth science, or even oceanography and biogeochemistry. It depends on what area you most study. A mathematician could be rightly called a climatologist if focusing their time on applying their expertise to climate.”

“BS- you made the claim and its as clear as day what you meant.”

It’s clear what I meant when the whole of what I stated is read. What exactly did I state that has you believe what, exactly?

“So now youre saying that anyone who has a doctorate can be a climate expert without any training? My English teacher in high school got her doctorate in education so I guess that means everyone ought to listen to her predict the climate.”

I’m not saying anything different “now” than before, per my own words quoted above from a prior post. Your misinterpretation belies your disingenuity and quite possibly your failure to comprehend the English language.

Quote what I said that is factually wrong.
Click to expand...

So youre doubling down and still saying anyone can be a climate expert LMAO. In that case, ask your dentist what he thinks the weather will be like in 50 years and do whatever he tells you to. :lamo
 
PoS said:
World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency | BioScience | Oxford Academic

BBC article was based on this. And the supposed list of 11K scientists signing onto the study had Mickey Mouse and Dumbledore among its signatories...
Click to expand...
Sure it did :roll:

Here is the co-author: Christopher Wolf - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
Christopher Wolf doesn't have a track record in publishing academic papers on climate science, therefore he is not a climatologist. Simple.

Where did I say that all the papers refute the IPCC and only them? Youre lying again...
Click to expand...

The title of the link that you referred to is "Popular Technology.net: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism". Are you saying you now accept that some of these papers, such I the one I cited, do not, in fact, support "skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW alarmism"?
 
Surface Detail said:
Sure it did :roll:


Christopher Wolf doesn't have a track record in publishing academic papers on climate science, therefore he is not a climatologist. Simple.



The title of the link that you referred to is "Popular Technology.net: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism". Are you saying you now accept that some of these papers, such I the one I cited, do not, in fact, support "skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW alarmism"?
Click to expand...
Words have meaning!
"Popular Technology.net: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism"
What would constitute a skeptical argument against ACC/AGW Alarmism?
The topic is almost without limit, but the top contenders would be,
Evidence that the climate's sensitivity to added CO2 is lower than that used in models.
The evidence could be simply that some other source for the observed warming has been identified,
like Svensmark's cosmic ray regulator theory. bear in mind that it is not necessary for an opposing theory to completely account for observed warming,
almost any other source of warming could break the catastrophic AGW concept.
Another argument might be systematic errors in temperature recording methodology from the change from analog to digital thermometers.
Perhaps a better understanding of all of the frequencies that go into El Nino cycles, could show that the 1978 to 1998 warming
was partially a long cycle constructive interference pattern.
You see, the entire concept of AGW rests on the idea that no other source of the warming could be found,
so any provable explanation of warming would weaken the alarmist argument.
 
Surface Detail said:
Sure it did :roll:


Christopher Wolf doesn't have a track record in publishing academic papers on climate science, therefore he is not a climatologist. Simple.



The title of the link that you referred to is "Popular Technology.net: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism". Are you saying you now accept that some of these papers, such I the one I cited, do not, in fact, support "skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW alarmism"?
Click to expand...

They indeed support skeptic arguments, as I explained to you. They don't necessarily support the IPCC strawman you tried to introduce.
 
Surface Detail said:
The title of the link that you referred to is "Popular Technology.net: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism". Are you saying you now accept that some of these papers, such I the one I cited, do not, in fact, support "skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW alarmism"?
Click to expand...

Lying again: you claimed that I said that all those papers specifically refuted the IPCC reports. The fact that you resort to such silly and obvious fallacies pretty much undermines your entire argument.

The papers support skeptical arguments, though not necessarily just against the IPCC since there's plenty of alarmist publications spewing out different versions of the same BS. The fact that you cherry picked one (1) paper out of 1350+ and then claim they are all invalid is beyond stupid.

You claimed to be some sort of researcher, but there is no way anyone would believe that now.
 
Last edited:
PoS said:
Lying again: you claimed that I said that all those papers specifically refuted the IPCC reports. The fact that you resort to such silly and obvious fallacies pretty much undermines your entire argument.

The papers support skeptical arguments, though not necessarily just against the IPCC since there's plenty of alarmist publications spewing out different versions of the same BS. The fact that you cherry picked one (1) paper out of 1350+ and then claim they are all invalid is beyond stupid.

You claimed to be some sort of researcher, but there is no way anyone would believe that now.
Click to expand...

Then why don’t you do the next 1349?

Oh, right.

You’ve never read any of them, and wouldn’t have the ability to interpret any of them anyway.

You just spam the link because you like the title. You don’t know or care if it’s true.
 
Jack Hays said:
They indeed support skeptic arguments, as I explained to you. They don't necessarily support the IPCC strawman you tried to introduce.
Click to expand...

The paper from the list that I highlighted does not support sceptic arguments, as I explained to you. The results that it describes are entirely compatible with the AGW consensus and not remotely contentious. Does the author of the paper claim that his results contradict any aspect of AGW? No, he doesn't, because he knows what he is talking about, unlike the denier propagandists / useful idiots intent on misrepresenting his paper!
 
Threegoofs said:
Then why don’t you do the next 1349?

Oh, right.

You’ve never read any of them, and wouldn’t have the ability to interpret any of them anyway.

You just spam the link because you like the title. You don’t know or care if it’s true.
Click to expand...

I read a few, which is more than I can say for you, so go back to your IPCC homepage and your Greta tweets.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

Sure you did.
Click to expand...
I have looked up several now, and many are quite skeptical of alarmist claims.
Some simply have findings which identify alternate sources of warming.
Here is an interesting one.
The Climatological Significance of a Doubling of Earth's Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration | Science
There thus appears to be a major discrepancy between current theory and experiment relative to the
effects of carbon dioxide on climate.
Until this discrepancy is resolved, we should not be too quick to limit our options in the selection of future energy alternatives.
Click to expand...
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes. You nailed it there.

I don’t know why physics journals even exist today- they should have stopped publishing in 1980.
Click to expand...
So how has the physics changed?
 
Surface Detail said:
The paper from the list that I highlighted does not support sceptic arguments, as I explained to you. The results that it describes are entirely compatible with the AGW consensus and not remotely contentious. Does the author of the paper claim that his results contradict any aspect of AGW? No, he doesn't, because he knows what he is talking about, unlike the denier propagandists / useful idiots intent on misrepresenting his paper!
Click to expand...

Nope. AGW advocates routinely claim Arctic sea ice retreat is a crisis. It's obviously not.
 
PoS said:
So youre doubling down and still saying anyone can be a climate expert LMAO. In that case, ask your dentist what he thinks the weather will be like in 50 years and do whatever he tells you to. :lamo
Click to expand...



So, you’re tripling down on not giving honest, forthright answer to my questions as to the veracity of THE FACTS. You run and hide, refusing to give a response that is on point. Why won’t you answer straight-forward question?

Everything I said is factual. You can’t prove otherwise. The dentist scenario of yours is a falsehood. What in dental education or practice/study is relevant to climatology as I described the parameters in my posting? It doesn’t. You purposely misrepresent what I’ve said, which is disingenuous and prevarication. You’re lying. I never said any such thing as you pretend.

People like you are not credible debaters. There is no sense in continuing a debate where you refuse to respond to the fact of the matter. Grow-up, be an adult and respond honestly and forthright.
 
bluesmoke said:
So, you’re tripling down on not giving honest, forthright answer to my questions as to the veracity of THE FACTS. You run and hide, refusing to give a response that is on point. Why won’t you answer straight-forward question?

Everything I said is factual. You can’t prove otherwise. The dentist scenario of yours is a falsehood. What in dental education or practice/study is relevant to climatology as I described the parameters in my posting? It doesn’t. You purposely misrepresent what I’ve said, which is disingenuous and prevarication. You’re lying. I never said any such thing as you pretend.

People like you are not credible debaters. There is no sense in continuing a debate where you refuse to respond to the fact of the matter. Grow-up, be an adult and respond honestly and forthright.
Click to expand...
LOL you made the claim that anyone with a doctorate (or spent 8 years in school- which means that a failed student who puts the time in also qualifies lol) can be considered as a climate expert, so the dentist analogy is spot on. Go on, ask your dentist what the weather will be like in 50 years. :lol:
 
It's Worse Than We Thought!
TREBLE “EMERGENCIES” ALL ROUND, GO EASY ON THE ICE

Reposted from altnewsmedia.net By: Chris Morrison November 13th 2019 It’s been a busy few days for the BBC’s Matt McGrath drawing attention to Professor Mickey Mouse’s view that the “climate emergency” is real while finding time out of his hectic writing schedule to pocket a 100,000 euro “award” from a climate activist outfit. The group…

[FONT=&quot]". . . This whole [/FONT]Armageddon fantasy[FONT=&quot] is little more than an insult to the intelligence. It uses unreliable computer models of a chaotic atmosphere to predict risible claims of runaway global warming while closing down any reasoned scientific debate. It uses children to promote its anti-human, reactionary message. It is a deranged middle class fixation using dodgy unproven science to clamp down on continued human progress and ingenuity and condemn millions to a lifetime of poverty, disease and early death. . . ."[/FONT]

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom