Prev: Anyone knowledgeable about lowest viscosity fluid at roomtemperature and atmospheric pressure?
Next: What is "kibology", anyway? I have looked it up in my dictionary...
From: Benj on 30 Mar 2010 20:06
On Mar 30, 6:20 pm, "Rob Dekker" <r...(a)verific.com> wrote:

> > These AGW idiots continue to play stupid and lie their asses off.
> > Contemptable, unprincipled bastards every single one.
>
> And then we have to deal with this kind of mudd slinging...

Sorry Rob. If it's true it's not "mud"!

From: Benj on 30 Mar 2010 20:14
On Mar 30, 6:48 pm, "Rob Dekker" <r...(a)verific.com> wrote:

> This is in sharp contrast to SkepticalScience.com, who list a reference to a scientific paper with all of their arguments.
>
> And that, my dear friends, is the difference between a scientifically well-founded blog post, and one that is only based on personal opinion.

Total bullshit. It's the difference to money-backed professional
propaganda and amateurs and people without financial backing trying to
bring some truth into the discussion. IPCC has claimed that the world
has rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather from AGW. But the
paper they used to make that claim when finally released to the public
stated: " We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical
relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophic
losses." Is that YOUR idea of "scientifically well-founded
conclusions"? And we can go on and on with examples like this. We
don't even have to refer to the climategate emails!

Idiot. or worse SHILL!




From: Benj on 30 Mar 2010 20:14
On Mar 29, 6:33 pm, "Eric Gisin" <er...(a)nospammail.net> wrote:

> The original posting with responses to the top 60 talking points was released on March 25th. Now,
> you can think about all the 104 observations.
>
> John Cook, a former student of physics in Australia, has constructed an interesting website trying
> to attack the opinions of climate skeptics.

Obviously John Cook dropped out of physics before switching to
political science. His website if pure political propaganda with his
so-called "points" easily refuted. You might as well just call it the
IPCC "greens" website. It'll make a great "scientific" link for Sam
the Sham, I'm sure. This is all about as "true" as IPCC chairman
Rajendra Pachauri is a "climate scientist". Ask shill "Wormley" what
his real training is. Try economist and former railroad engineer! No
wonder he's so prone to lies. Oh wait. When he got caught lying about
Himalayan glaciers melting he just said it was his staff's fault! Now
there is a guy you can trust. He needs to hire The Amazing Randi to
stump for AGW taxes.

From: Rob Dekker on 30 Mar 2010 22:36

"Benj" <bjacoby(a)iwaynet.net> wrote in message news:4fffaa9b-303a-4a12-910e-bbe17ef5793d(a)z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 30, 6:48 pm, "Rob Dekker" <r...(a)verific.com> wrote:

> > This is in sharp contrast to SkepticalScience.com, who list a reference to a scientific paper with all of their arguments.
> >
> > And that, my dear friends, is the difference between a scientifically well-founded blog post, and one that is only based on
> > personal opinion.

> Total bullshit. It's the difference to money-backed professional
> propaganda and amateurs and people without financial backing trying to
> bring some truth into the discussion.

Benj, still full of anger, huh...

Any way, your first statement is already incorrect.

SkepticalScience.com states explicitly : "Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook. .... There is no funding to maintain
Skeptical Science - it's run at personal expense."
I cannot find a similar statement on Motl's web site, but I'm pretty sure that he also runs this on personal expense.

Rob



From: Androcles on 31 Mar 2010 01:00

"Benj" <bjacoby(a)iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:4fffaa9b-303a-4a12-910e-bbe17ef5793d(a)z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 30, 6:48 pm, "Rob Dekker" <r...(a)verific.com> wrote:

> This is in sharp contrast to SkepticalScience.com, who list a reference to
> a scientific paper with all of their arguments.
>
> And that, my dear friends, is the difference between a scientifically
> well-founded blog post, and one that is only based on personal opinion.

Total bullshit. It's the difference to money-backed professional
propaganda and amateurs and people without financial backing trying to
bring some truth into the discussion. IPCC has claimed that the world
has rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather from AGW. But the
paper they used to make that claim when finally released to the public
stated: " We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical
relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophic
losses." Is that YOUR idea of "scientifically well-founded
conclusions"? And we can go on and on with examples like this. We
don't even have to refer to the climategate emails!

Idiot. or worse SHILL!

============================================

"We find insufficient evidence to claim..." most certainly is
my idea of a scientifically well founded conclusion.




 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: Anyone knowledgeable about lowest viscosity fluid at roomtemperature and atmospheric pressure?
Next: What is "kibology", anyway? I have looked it up in my dictionary...