• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Letters to a Heretic

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Letters to a Heretic

    There's an interesting example here of a climate change dogmatist trying to browbeat skeptic Prof Freeman Dyson.
    Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ here

    #2
    Originally posted by OwlHoot View Post
    There's an interesting example here of a climate change dogmatist trying to browbeat skeptic Prof Freeman Dyson.
    What happened to the revelation that climate data had been falsified and emails bounding around from the pro agw scientists admitting this? How this even still has legs is beyond me, or rather I think I see only too clearly that the G20 want to fund future globalisation projects from carbon taxes.

    Science has nothing to do with this any more.
    Knock first as I might be balancing my chakras.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by OwlHoot View Post
      There's an interesting example here of a climate change dogmatist trying to browbeat skeptic Prof Freeman Dyson.
      Does it contain the words moron, bedwetter and village idiot. If not, I'm not interested.
      What happens in General, stays in General.
      You know what they say about assumptions!

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by suityou01 View Post
        What happened to the revelation that climate data had been falsified and emails bounding around from the pro agw scientists admitting this? How this even still has legs is beyond me
        Well,
        let's say that I've never seen an elephant, so I don't believe in them. In order to convince me that elephants exist, you send me loads of photos of elephants. However, it turns out that one of the photos of elephants isn't genuine. It's a photo of an empty zoo cage, with a very realistic drawing of an elephant photoshopped into it. Maybe you knew that, and maybe you didn't. It still doesn't make all your other photos any less valid or convincing.

        The UEA emails are interesting to some and might show some dodgy conduct, but they aren't essential to the whole debate.

        Comment


          #5
          Well if next winter is going to be as cold as this and last winter, I'm emigrating somewhere warm. Either that or putting some heating on.

          Anyone else not used their central heating yet?*




          *only open to UK residents

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by MarillionFan View Post
            Does it contain the words moron, bedwetter and village idiot. If not, I'm not interested.
            You forgot word "cretin".

            HTH

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by AtW View Post
              You forgot word "cretin".

              HTH
              No. I knew you'd appear.
              What happens in General, stays in General.
              You know what they say about assumptions!

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by TimberWolf View Post
                Well if next winter is going to be as cold as this and last winter, I'm emigrating somewhere warm. Either that or putting some heating on.

                Anyone else not used their central heating yet?*




                *only open to UK residents
                That's because the warmists believe that colder winters are proof of global warming
                Doing the needful since 1827

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by thunderlizard View Post
                  Well,
                  let's say that I've never seen an elephant, so I don't believe in them. In order to convince me that elephants exist, you send me loads of photos of elephants. However, it turns out that one of the photos of elephants isn't genuine. It's a photo of an empty zoo cage, with a very realistic drawing of an elephant photoshopped into it. Maybe you knew that, and maybe you didn't. It still doesn't make all your other photos any less valid or convincing.
                  just to add a little to your analogy.

                  The people who send you the photos have never seen one either. They 'know' it exists because they have a computer model that proves that there are small animal, bigger animals, much bigger animals, so therefore there must be a VERY big animal.
                  plus they have found a great big massive heap of steaming sh1te. now, where did THAT come from. Its unprecedented, no animal EVER has produced such a heap. therefore there must be a big animal.

                  except we know that there did used to be big animals, we can prove it.

                  So there is a large area of doubt. Now you are admitting that these guys are dodgy to boot and they want £10000000000 ? for a cage

                  hmmm. I will wait till you catch one TL if its all the same to you



                  (\__/)
                  (>'.'<)
                  ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Is Steve Connor - the science editor of the Independant - a scientist? Has he had any scientific training? I'd guess not, as he seems to be following the usual humanities degree approach to what scientific proof actually means, and what experimental evidence is.

                    In history, for example, the "truth" is determined by consensus. What most people who have studied it think, and agree is the truth of what happened. In science it's not. If it's verifiable or falsifiable, then evidence will show whether it's likely to be true. If it's neither - it isn't science.

                    I note that Steve Connor has a rather uncomplimentary entry in badscience.net

                    So - journalist vs scientist over a question of science. Journalist is a pillock for picking the fight.
                    Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X