Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
johnsonsbaby said:
I looked him up, it says he fiddled his time sheets and that's why he was sacked <laugh>

I'm not on any side on this subject because as happens many times, there's always two sides, both convincing, so it comes down to what each individual thinks is the most convincing.
Click to expand...


He fiddled his timesheets, that's what they used to get rid of this MMCC climate dissenter, everyone fiiddles their timesheets, you accept that as fact like, immediately and without reason to accept that is the truth. Worse still, people read that **** and totally disregard what he is saying even though that is his field of expertise.

That's my point about a message being lost because people find the first piece of "information" they can to taint the message. In this case, a claim he was sacked over timesheets, even though a much more legitimate reason exists, dissent from MMCC, and he's not the first to face this kind of treatment.


This is exactly why post grads CANNOT dissent, because their careers hang in the balance, so how does this effect on science bode?
 
I will have to wait a long time for this debunking by Astro of why the IPCC are not liars, It's proven they are
Why cosmic ray effects on clouds has no bearing on climate
Why solar cycles have no effect on climate (irradiance is irrelevant in this context, it's a separate argument)
Why IPCC modelling is always wrong and why they cannot even model last year, cos all their claims are from this modelling.


I think if Astro can make a good case for the above I will accept it and figure those good points into an assessment of where the IPCC stands imo, instead of ignoring them entirely or explaining them away as an "agenda".
 
astroturfnaut said:
TBH I'd more like to hear his argument for working 16 hours a day for 3 months at $50 per hour.
Click to expand...


Just proves you will not accept or listen to any counter argument. I grew up with the Al Gore and inconvenient truth and 100 other documentaries first, then I started to listen to the other side of the argument.

You obviously only listen to one side, that's patently obvious from this thread
 
Sisu said:
Just proves you will not accept or listen to any counter argument. I grew up with the Al Gore and inconvenient truth and 100 other documentaries first, then I started to listen to the other side of the argument.

You obviously only listen to one side, that's patently obvious from this thread
Click to expand...

Nope it just proves I might as well have a laugh since you talk ****e.

Where are the quotes of me saying 97%?
 
Sisu said:
<laugh>

fair enough, it was a mock excuse to get rid of a credible dissenter, it has happened before and will again.
Click to expand...

And it's completely different from you using Al Gore's electricity bill to question AGW isn't it?
 
astroturfnaut said:
Nope it just proves I might as well have a laugh since you talk ****e.

Where are the quotes of me saying 97%?
Click to expand...


As I originally said, that was another thread, where you went off the deep end defending the IPCC, I have no clue what that thread was called and I'm not arsed to search all those posts **** that. You win<ok>

You focus on that bcause it's all you're left with at this point.

Your stupidity is epic Astro, you believe lies about atmospheric science from bureaucrats and railroad engineers, but when an Atmospheric scientist speaks, you have no interest <laugh>

I'll await your debunking of the points made above tho, cos I am sure you have lots of ammo to back yourself up, or is this a step too far from digging up football stats or posts from users from 5 years ago?
 
Sisu said:
I will have to wait a long time for this debunking by Astro of why the IPCC are not liars, It's proven they are
Why cosmic ray effects on clouds has no bearing on climate
Why solar cycles have no effect on climate (irradiance is irrelevant in this context, it's a separate argument)
Why IPCC modelling is always wrong and why they cannot even model last year, cos all their claims are from this modelling.


I think if Astro can make a good case for the above I will accept it and figure those good points into an assessment of where the IPCC stands imo, instead of ignoring them entirely or explaining them away as an "agenda".
Click to expand...


Make your arguments Astro, time to step up, I've cast enough doubt on the IPCC modelling and claims, over to you to defend them.<ok>
 
Sisu said:
As I originally said, that was another thread, where you went off the deep end defending the IPCC, I have no clue what that thread was called and I'm not arsed to search all those posts **** that. You win<ok>

You focus on that bcause it's all you're left with at this point.

Your stupidity is epic Astro, you believe lies about atmospheric science from bureaucrats and railroad engineers, but when an Atmospheric scientist speaks, you have no interest <laugh>

I'll await your debunking of the points made above tho, cos I am sure you have lots of ammo to back yourself up, or is this a step too far from digging up football stats or posts from users from 5 years ago?
Click to expand...

You have the time to tell me over and over and over and over and over what I supposedly believe.

But you don't have the time bother actually quoting me saying what I believe.

Quality argument there. <ok>
 
astroturfnaut said:
You have the time to tell me over and over and over and over and over what I supposedly believe.

But you don't have the time bother actually quoting me saying what I believe.

Quality argument there. <ok>
Click to expand...

We both know you believed in global warming with no sceintific evidence, just cause everyone seemed to think it was real, prior to this thread you knew nothing about the IPCC. Yet you believed them.

Kinda like beliving priests about jebus <laugh>

My argument is as follows, you keep ignoring it, I've made a case for the below, and backed it up. Are you going to avoid it, lets here your cleverly worded response as to why you will avoid this debate entirely?
why the IPCC are not liars?
Why cosmic ray effects on clouds has no bearing on climate?
Why solar cycles have no effect on climate? (irradiance is irrelevant in this context, it's a separate argument)
Why IPCC modelling is always wrong and why they cannot even model last year, cos all their claims are from this modelling?
 
Have we decided whether the Sun being ****ing hot might affect climate yet or what?

I'm dying to find out <ok>
 
astroturfnaut said:
You have the time to tell me over and over and over and over and over what I supposedly believe.

But you don't have the time bother actually quoting me saying what I believe.

Quality argument there. <ok>
Click to expand...

I have told you over and over and over again it is the standard MO of Sisu (supertruther -so much cleverer and wiser than all those ordinary truthers ), misrepresent, lie, misquote, post tons of slightly relevant stuff but nothing about the point in question and then repeat.

He could be right or you could be but why bother arguing with him when he will not listen.

Useful old phrase along the lines of there are none so blind as those that choose not to see.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back