Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

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".

 

@johnsonsbaby
You mentioned timesheets Everyone fiddles timesheets.

Maybe have a listen to his scientific argument instead

 

TBH I'd more like to hear his argument for working 16 hours a day for 3 months at $50 per hour.

 

I laughed in my post because of the reason given for his sacking not because I believed it.

 

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

 

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

Where are the quotes of me saying 97%?

 

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

 

And it's completely different from you using Al Gore's electricity bill to question AGW isn't it?

 

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

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

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

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?

 

It was 14 hours

 

who worked for ONLY 50 dollars and hour???

on consultant rates that is bloody slavery

 

Well that was only his "administration" rate

He redacted his actual work costs

 

thats all right then.. I thought i'd have to report them to the ethics committee somewhere.

 

Where did you find his hourly rate?

 

Have we decided whether the Sun being ****ing hot might affect climate yet or what?

I'm dying to find out

 

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.