tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2686354713190138224.post5921670403825701289..comments2023-10-12T00:07:25.722+13:00Comments on roarprawn: How to be an anthropogenic global warming skepticUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2686354713190138224.post-29959486671345724122010-06-09T08:38:25.753+12:002010-06-09T08:38:25.753+12:00Andrew is spot on.
What a load of bilge.
AGW - A...Andrew is spot on.<br /><br />What a load of bilge.<br /><br />AGW - Al Gore's WeatherFijiDavenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2686354713190138224.post-64925422766367688942010-06-05T20:02:48.398+12:002010-06-05T20:02:48.398+12:00Hmmm...funny... the failure to put up my post kind...Hmmm...funny... the failure to put up my post kind of supports my view... and here Craig Ellison said you were a good chickAndrewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2686354713190138224.post-44057828818293541782010-06-05T15:17:52.210+12:002010-06-05T15:17:52.210+12:00Consensus is an unscientific notion taken from sof...Consensus is an unscientific notion taken from soft sciences like political science. There is no possibility of a consensus in physics or why continue. The dilemmas and contradictions are where the growth of knowledge occurs. Moreover, the moment a scientist believes his own hypothesis, he's a dead duck as a scientist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2686354713190138224.post-40040062462961077122010-06-05T07:53:54.900+12:002010-06-05T07:53:54.900+12:00How to be an AGW supporter : )
• 1. Allege that ...How to be an AGW supporter : )<br /><br />• 1. Allege that there's a conspiracy. Claim everyone who opposes your view is backed by big business and oil companies while failing to declare the vast sums of government money you yourself are dependant upon.<br />• 2. Use fake experts to support your story. "Denial always starts with a cadre of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a facade of credibility.This is why the IPCC puts up a railway engineer as its lead expert" says Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut.<br />• 3. Cherry-pick the evidence: trumpet whatever appears to support your case and ignore or rubbish the rest. Carry on trotting out supportive evidence even after it has been discredited like the Mann Hockey Stick or the Briffa siberian tree ring data , or the Himilayan Glacial retreat or any number of examples to numerous to mention.<br />• 4. Create impossible standards for your opponents. Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more. If your opponent comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts while all the time refusing to make your own research available for peer review and blocking publication of dissenting views.<br />• 5. Use logical fallacies. Hitler opposed smoking, so anti-smoking measures are Nazi. So label opposition as deniers, resort to name calling and broad labels while refusing to debate the facts. <br />• 6. Manufacture doubt. Falsely portray scientists as in consensus so that basing policy on their advice is vital. Insist "both sides" must be heard and but censor "dissenting" arguments or experts.Andrewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2686354713190138224.post-17975731195230439572010-06-04T20:36:03.764+12:002010-06-04T20:36:03.764+12:00Mmm ... basic rule, is however if you have the sta...Mmm ... basic rule, is however if you have the statistical nouse & the ability to critically assay, is to go to source.<br />If you do not have the ability to do that, then you go to your points ... croc of nonsense really.mojohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18400094599778512902noreply@blogger.com