Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Standards

As for the rest of it -over and out for now, I think.

Apr 7, 2017 at 9:00 AM | Mark Hodgson

"Over and out" is a legacy of TV Series like Z-Cars! Frighfully bad radio protocol! (unless intended ....?)

Apr 7, 2017 at 11:47 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Sorry, Minty, but you do appear to be one of the more shockable on here, so I could not resist. Aren’t I wicked!?

GC: perhaps Mr Hodgson was following my lead with some innuendo – and… erm… slipped in a subtle bragging moment.

Apr 7, 2017 at 1:47 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Ravishing Rattie, no abject and heartfelt apology, just bragging about your wickedness and inability to do the right thing? On a discussion thread upon standards no less. My opinion of you has just gone up!

Apr 7, 2017 at 2:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Radical, that is perfect - an article at Principia Scientific by an idiot hockeyschtick who misunderstands Feynman. Just right for you to be unable to untangle, I'm sure. The Rabett wrote about gravity and the greenhouse effect recently, if you can manage.

Mark, whatever we

Apr 7, 2017 at 5:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterWilliam

Thank you, William. You have provided sufficient evidence that you are nobbut a troll. In all your posts, you have not provided one jot of science, just ad homs at every opportunity. Then you resort to Rabbett. Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear…

I now understand why Mr Hodgson gave up on you.

Apr 7, 2017 at 6:22 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

The Rabett wrote about gravity and the greenhouse effect recently, if you can manage.

Apr 7, 2017 at 5:55 PM | William

"The Rabett" is hardly a reliable source on the Hockey Teamsters, let alone an independent source.

If he wrote about Gravity and the Greenhouse effect, do you think he could get Mann to use data the right way up, before the bottoms falls out of Climate Science, heads first?

If you are familiar with "The Rabett", can you confirm his views on Mann, Cook and Gergis, before US Taxpayers stop funding Climate Scientists, their blogs and collaborators?

Apr 7, 2017 at 11:30 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I see normal LibMob PR trickery here

#1 SIX MONTHS ago David Whitehouse said something

#2 A standard LibMob technique is no to debate sincerely, fairly and productively but rather seek to score points

#3 They do this with MISREPRESENTATION : taking a long list of points and cherrypicking one , they usually twist what you said and have no scruples about making stuff up. They SMEAR

Thus @PC started thread with with MISREPRESENTATION and SMEAR

Hmmmm. From the 'that explains a lot' department. Official GWPF policy is confirmed as
'misleading the public by making factually inaccurate statements.'

Who knew? Indy page climate-change-sceptic-mislead-pulbic-inaccurate-statements-free-speech-plea-mps-a7657951.html
(links to web blog of a fanatic who seems to spend all his university office hours typing/tweeting political campaigning)

So of course David Whitehouse certainly did not say such a thing..out of a long submission a tiny bit deep into it has been cherrypicked and twisted.
It's the fallacy of Misrepresentation : FALLACIES OF OMISSION
(The fallacy of exclusion is a logical fallacy where
"Important evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.
The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the 'principle of total evidence.' ")

@NBY gave us full context
mainly that the paragraph was NOT about what GWPF said but what "science journalism" said

@PC then just sneered and repeated the same Misrepresentation again
Apr 4, 2017 at 11:06 AM | Phil Clarke

Apr 4, 2017 at 2:41 PM | Radical Rodent summed it brilliantly as

Basically, freedom is paramount.
You are free to lie, and I am free to challenge.
Attack the lie, not the right to tell it.
PS Don’t lie.
Then @PC and @Will continued in the same unfair insincere debate pattern of misrepresentation and driving into off topic points

And all the many lurkers here are free to see that.

Apr 9, 2017 at 9:52 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Thank you, stewgreen; I wish I could take full credit for that quotation, however, it should be more correctly attributed to Dr David Whitehouse. It has been an interesting discussion, most useful in that it has flushed out William for the troll he is, without one ounce of logical, scientific argument, just resorting to cat-calling and ad hominems.

Methinks this thread did not go quite the way that Mr Clarke dreamed that it would.

Apr 9, 2017 at 10:17 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

The Rabett wrote about gravity and the greenhouse effect recently, if you can manage.
Apr 7, 2017 at 5:55 PM | William

Yes he did, but in true climate science style, he invented an energy source;

...since the lapse rate (the slope) stays constant, the surface temperature increases...

When it does not unless you believe that the atmosphere warms the surface, which is warming the atmosphere, which is warming the surface...

And confirms his mistake by denigrating others that understand that the lapse rate warms the lower atmosphere as the effective radiating altitude to space increases;

...Anybunny who wants to deny that the greenhouse effect exists or that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will not warm the surface is denying the law of gravity...

Why does that matter: there is a greenhouse effect isn't there? You may ask.

Because to make such a basic mistake with physics leads to wrong conclusions, wrong mathematical models and wrong government policy.

Apr 9, 2017 at 10:39 PM | Unregistered Commenterssat


Hmmmm. From the 'that explains a lot' department. Official GWPF policy is confirmed as 
'misleading the public by making factually inaccurate statements.'

Who knew?"

Apr 4, 2017 at 7:48 AM | Phil Clarke

We know that normal scientific standards of honesty do not apply in Climate Science, but don't yet know whether 97% of the mistakes depend on just a handful of incorrect assumptions.

Who in Climate Science does know?

Apr 10, 2017 at 7:10 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

The only "Standards" of interest to Climate Scientists, seem to be their own standards of living. These must be maintained, whatever the cost to everyone else.

Apr 10, 2017 at 9:23 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie