Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 144374	2017-09-26 01:30:00	It's Getting Serious!	B.M. (505)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1439786	2017-10-02 10:27:00	Talk about Pompous and full of yourself. :rolleyes: Common Sense is the Foundation of Genuine Science, something completely absent with the Pseudo Science you specialise in. :groan: No, forming hypotheses and gathering evidence is the foundation of science - en.wikipedia.org If you have a look, you'll see Common Sense is not actually part of the scientific method! Guess you learn something new everyday :devil:devil	Nick G (16709)
1439787	2017-10-02 10:33:00	If a landing area for old rockets (aka Crash Pad) after their test flight was gazetted for establishment surrounding your place, you would probably regard a certificate in rocket science not an essential prerequisite to your packing a sad and throwing a sub-orbital wobbly. You would likely consider living in the impact area grounds for concern and having an opinion, in this it is exactly like climate change. Thalidomide was pronounced safe by experts, a small number of babies offered an alternate view. Experts in data and statistics produced the data and statistics to support the changes to the building code that allowed us the joys of leaky buildings plus the bonus of untreated timber to keep the ball rolling. We are currently a little short of test areas to try global tests to destruction, and Plan B: "Try It And See" is barely OK for Lotto gamblers. 100% agree that science and scientists get it wrong. Science evolves when mistakes are found. Go ahead and publish a peer reviewed scientific paper debunking climate change :) In your rocket example, obviously you might pack a sad, and obviously you wouldn't need a cert in rocket science to do so. However, telling the rocket engineers how to design the rocket itself is a different matter. The same principle applies to climate change, and is a hugely common mistake. There are actually two separate issues - whether we are contributing to climate change in a way likely to negatively impact future humans, and what to do about it. One is a public policy issue, the other is a fact.	Nick G (16709)
1439788	2017-10-02 21:35:00	If a landing area for old rockets (aka Crash Pad) after their test flight was gazetted for establishment surrounding your place, you would probably regard a certificate in rocket science not an essential prerequisite to your packing a sad and throwing a sub-orbital wobbly. You would likely consider living in the impact area grounds for concern and having an opinion, in this it is exactly like climate change. Thalidomide was pronounced safe by experts, a small number of babies offered an alternate view. Experts in data and statistics produced the data and statistics to support the changes to the building code that allowed us the joys of leaky buildings plus the bonus of untreated timber to keep the ball rolling. We are currently a little short of test areas to try global tests to destruction, and Plan B: "Try It And See" is barely OK for Lotto gamblers. And the thing that makes this Rort outstanding is the perpetrators knew their calculations were wrong, and wouldn’t stand up to Peer Scrutiny, so they fudged the figures to keep their snouts in the trough, thereby embarrassing genuine Scientists. However, that behaviour is apparently acceptable in the Church of Climatology. 8319	B.M. (505)
1439789	2017-10-02 23:19:00	WalOne, we didn't really need your Monday Laughs this week, this thread more than fills that bill.	rumpty (2863)
1439790	2017-10-03 04:51:00	No, forming hypotheses and gathering evidence is the foundation of science - en.wikipedia.org If you have a look, you'll see Common Sense is not actually part of the scientific method! Guess you learn something new everyday :devil:devil Well I must say that I’m surprised that "Common Sense" is no longer a requirement of Science. However, on reflection, it does show and especially in the Church of Climatology. :groan:	B.M. (505)
1439791	2017-10-03 05:18:00	And the thing that makes this Rort outstanding is the perpetrators knew their calculations were wrong, and wouldn’t stand up to Peer Scrutiny, so they fudged the figures to keep their snouts in the trough, thereby embarrassing genuine Scientists. However, that behaviour is apparently acceptable in the Church of Climatology. 8319 I was going to withdraw from this bunfight because there seemed to be little point in continuing. However I want to comment on this latest contribution. The extract from Phil Jones' email posted by BM is a classic example of what happens when those who don't have a clue about what is going on read someone else's correspondence and get it hilariously wrong. The 'ClimateGate' emails were discussed ad nauseam and and analysed and reported on for months. The conclusion? Nothing to see here, folks, let's move on. The UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee issued a report on the affair and below I have extracted two of their conclusions that are relevant to BM's quoted email: 60. Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones’s use of the word “trick” is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is predominately caused by human activity. The balance of evidence patently fails to support this view. It appears to be a colloquialism for a “neat” method of handling data. 66. Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones’s use of the words “hide the decline” is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is predominantly caused by human activity. That he has published papers—including a paper in Nature—dealing with this aspect of the science clearly refutes this allegation. In our view, it was shorthand for the practice of discarding data known to be erroneous. We expect that this is a matter the Scientific Appraisal Panel will address. The report strives for a balanced, middle-of-the-road approach, but the conclusions are clear - the allegations made about the UEA emails were nonsense.	Jayess64 (8703)
1439792	2017-10-03 08:18:00	I was going to withdraw from this bunfight because there seemed to be little point in continuing. However I want to comment on this latest contribution. The extract from Phil Jones' email posted by BM is a classic example of what happens when those who don't have a clue about what is going on read someone else's correspondence and get it hilariously wrong. The 'ClimateGate' emails were discussed ad nauseam and and analysed and reported on for months. The conclusion? Nothing to see here, folks, let's move on. :lol: Of course there wasn't anything to be found because the Hearing was presided over by their mates who were part of the Rort. That inquiry was the equivalent of having the Mongrel Mob presiding over a hearing of their President assaulting a Prison Guard. I suppose next thing you will tell me they unnecessarily changed the Dogs name from Global Warming to Climate Change. Anyway, 20 years later nothing remarkable has happened except for hiding the decline. :lol:	B.M. (505)
1439793	2017-10-03 09:00:00	:lol: I suppose next thing you will tell me they unnecessarily changed the Dogs name from Global Warming to Climate Change. :lol: Not at all, because Global Warming and Climate Change are different things, but I've already pointed that out.	Jayess64 (8703)
1439794	2017-10-03 18:37:00	Not at all, because Global Warming and Climate Change are different things, but I've already pointed that out. Could I impose upon you to explain the difference please or direct me to your previous post you refer to?	B.M. (505)
1439795	2017-10-03 20:49:00	Could I impose upon you to explain the difference please or direct me to your previous post you refer to? Posted on May 25 this year.	Jayess64 (8703)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9