Is that right ; explain ; with examples ; your attitude presented here.
Climate-gate
- Thread starter Photizo
- Start date
Is that right ; explain ; with examples ; your attitude presented here.
Do you realize how such a request from you is so stupidly hypocritical?
Do you relise that your propensity to insult is more important than knowledge?
Just stating facts. You are a hypocrite. How many times have you avoided requests for evidence of your silly claims? or cunningly side stepped it in some way or other.
And others have noted that.
BTW, how many forums have you been banned from?
Already done, in the earlier thread - actually, iirc done for you twice now, in two threads, using quotes from the website and informing you of the problems with them and the guy himself. You've been flogging that garbage book and that sleazy scammer for a long time now - we have repeated ourselves often enough.river said:
river
because a book is (by design) a promotion of ideas (or ideals) and not necessarily the truth: it is basically an opinion on the subject, especially WRT climate change as well as science, etc... this is how you can have book's that are considered science by people like "reg mundy" who ignore physics and reality and argue that there is no such thing like gravity, or perhaps those from the electric universe who ignore reality and make unsubstantiated claims or complete nonsense pseudoscience proclamations
because a book is not, i repeat NOT, peer reviewed, nor is it subject to the constraints of the scientific method, whereas a peer reviewed study is
original source material is the key to factual representation of science - and that can only be done with peer reviewed reputable journal papers
that, by far, is the most important point WRT science, knowledge and "books vs papers"
so, when you make a claim like this:
this is like saying "Dr. Seuss should be retracted for spelling and punctuation errors"
books don't get retracted... they either sell well or don't
now lets talk about this
this is nonsense
point made above is that the credibility of "Tim"is incredibly poor, especially WRT climate science
then you link his personal site as evidence of .,.. what?
his stellar credibility?
that is a wonky tactic... a personal site can say anything it wants to... including but not limited to "how credible" he want's to be
so offering a personal website to clear the credibility issue is really stupid, imho
mostly because credibility is not something one can claim, like being an "expert"
it requires outside sources and inspection of historical documents (like peer reviewed papers - and their retractions) or just plain history of said individual...
TCS
What most people fail to grasp; because most people fail to read a book ; as opposed to finding their information on the web; is details; details ; details.
In the book , Tim explains the fraud; and how E-mails were leaked to PROVE the fraud. Thousands of e-mails were leaked. It should be a matter course that the general public should know this; but the media reports nothing about this.
What most people fail to grasp; because most people fail to read a book ; as opposed to finding their information on the web; is details; details ; details.
In the book , Tim explains the fraud; and how E-mails were leaked to PROVE the fraud. Thousands of e-mails were leaked. It should be a matter course that the general public should know this; but the media reports nothing about this.
this is your opinion
your opinion is not fact - it is also unsubstantiated
by the time a book can be published, it can be out of date altogether (or at least way behind the information being found or researched)
if "tim" could prove this, he would be one of the most famous scientists on the planet
just saying "there is a fraud" is not enough - evidence must be given
if the issue is studies vs book - the studies will win every time
... if both were taken into a court and you were arguing from the book OR study, and the evidence were given as your book vs my studies - there is no contest: your evidence (the book) is simply opinion vs studies that are validated (factual, reproducible validated evidence)
if you're talking "climate gate" e-mails, it's already been proven that this is all a bunch of bs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
If you're talking new "leaks" then you are simply grasping at anything that will (in your own mind) substantiate your beliefs (can also be confirmation bias - something that is known in all conspiratorial circles as well as pseudoscience cults)
when you produce a claim, i suggest you check your sources and stay away from "biased" or intentionally misleading sites
this means all sites with an agenda, including, but not limited to: your above mentioned "tim" and all the political BS agenda sites, etc
the reasoning is simple: you can either follow the EVIDENCE or you can be delusional
that is not easily done, but in science, it is the only way
you can't make this situation be any more real or fake than it is... the evidence is clear: there is a problem and we're exacerbating it
river
postscript
you are making an argument about that is considered a false claim
http://www.auburn.edu/academic/education/reading_genie/Fact-opinion.html
it has no evidence, and you've provided nothing but opinion to substantiate your claim
this is also another problem WRT the anti-AGW or whatever denier crowd: making a claim isn't proof... and repeating it doesn't make it more true
and all of that comes back to the "details" found in the published peer reviewed journal papers you are ignoring for your biased opinion book
there is only one source: original sources
papers
peer reviewed journal publications which can be tracked, substantiated, validated and more...
That does not change the fact that you are a hypocrite, nor does it answer my question re how many forums you have been banned from.
BTW for your information, I accept the evidence for climate change and believe that in the case of any doubt at all, we must err on the side of caution.
Now you have a question to answer.
No, he doesn't. He's by turns muddled and deceptive, wrong and dishonest, but never reliable - about anything. He can't explain - it's not in his skill set.river said:
Once again, from this website 'river' is so fond of, some Tim Ball when he's not trying to deceive, but is merely writing down wrongheaded and illiterate stuff - Tim Ball at his best, in other words, under the category "Biology":
http://drtimball.com/2012/a-good-soaking-rain/
Yes. So the book was written by a proven liar.
Why not read a few more books? Basing your worldview on a single book by a proven liar isn't conducive to wisdom. It is merely a way to believe what you want to believe without any pesky facts getting in the way of that belief.
river
would you expect a Buddhist Monk to learn the Abrahamic bible?
if:
the known information about the book is incorrect, and the author has been proven to be not only unreliable but also bought, paid for and a flunkie of a known dishonest institution as well as a known denier of proven validated science...
then:
why the holy f*ck would anyone buy the book and read it unless they're seeking to personally validate their known inadequacies, seeking to support their faith in religious, political or peer mass delusions, or simply looking for someone to exacerbate their already unstable Dunning-Kruger and narcissism??
if:
the typical pseudoscience acolyte can't take the time to get a free education from MIT ... and refuses to acknowledge proven validated physics
then:
why is it relevant that one person should actually read a text from a person who is [in the words of billvon ] "a proven liar"??
This is like requiring physics PhD candidates to memorize reg mundy or the thunderbolts site!!!!
Good analysis. He's a poster child for intellectual dishonesty. Continiously.
Iceaura is the authority. Your juvenile request for a reference is nonsense. He told you why your author is a scientific illiterate. You want to tout bullshit nonsense. Continuously. Read something that could be considered a coherent analysis on the subjects you continiously butcher in these threads. IE quit referencing pseudoscience bullshit.
Last edited: