
philgollin
Members-
Posts
1,013 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Recent Profile Visitors
487 profile views
philgollin's Achievements

Crew (2/3)
0
Reputation
-
You seem to want to blame me for specifically asking whether you were playing silly word games, twice, and your denying it and then your declaring that you had played word games. Amazing demonstration. .
-
its pretty much official now: Iran is making nukes.
philgollin replied to dejawolf's topic in Military Current Events
Wildly off-topic, but I often think how grateful I am that the Russians were the rational ones and didn't respond to the illegal and aggressive acts by the Kennedy Administration to the Soviet's sensible, legal, measured and reactive moves. (I am not convinced, however, that that is what you were thinking.) . -
Please don't worry. As a relative outsider you may judge, or not, as you wish. If you can spot what is being argued and what is merely bluster, good for you. The bluster is amusing, especially when it is thought of as somehow relevant. Many more people read these threads than actually contribute to them, they are doubtlessly amused also. .
-
Excellent, so despite being asked twice you were hiding behind word play, pathetic. So, you think putting "hockey-stick" in the serach bar is beyond your competence ? I think you have suitably demonstrated your abilities after being asked and then challenged twice. .
-
So, having been given two extra chances to check (both the links and that you weren't playing "word games") you have failed to find (for instance) ; http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...e-hockey-stick/ Now, what does that say about your abilities, or of those who "agreed" with you ? -------------------------- As for the mindless "groupthink" (thinking that the messenger is more important than the message) has anyone actually managed to dent the basic fact that the case against the "hockey-stick" has been shown to be false ? Just remember, any web-site, article or blog which claims that the "hockey-stick" is false are either lying or demonstrating their ignorance. .
-
its pretty much official now: Iran is making nukes.
philgollin replied to dejawolf's topic in Military Current Events
Look, I think that Iran is as idiotic as everyone here does, but I will point out (yet) again that there is nothing illegal about producing a nuclear weapon and there is no legal basis to attack someone who has one, unless one has evidence that they are actually going to use it. I wish people would just try to think what a nuclear exchange - even just one each side (some hope) would involve. . -
unfortunately, that document is out of date, see (forinstance) the NAS site. Posting old info is pointless. .
-
So, I caught you out trying to play word games. Go to those sites they all have what I claimed. .
-
So, no criticism of the links, I presume you accept that the "hockey-stick" is correct ? .
-
Now, are you sure about that, or are you playing silly games ? Are you claiming that those sites don't "directly address the "hockey-stick" issue (which they do), or merely that those links don't directly go to the issue ? Playing games is not debating, it merely shows you are not interested in the truth. .
-
Ever since "Downfall" came out I haven't managed to watch "Hitler: The Last Ten Days" on TV (why ?). Has anyone managed to watch and compare both, and if so any idea which is "better" or more accurate ? .
-
I am being perfectly rational and impersonal. I have quoted my sources, and it is plain and simple for anyone to check. If people then want to believe web-sites, articles or blogs that claim that the "hockey-stick" is false, i.e. which are deliberately mis-leading (i.e. lying) or which claim expertise whilst demonstrating their actual ignorance, then that is clear to all. It is not a case of a scientific difference of opinion, it is a case of one side having been demonstrably proved right (the "hockey-stick" is correct") and the other side demonstrably wrong. If web-sites, articles or bloggers claim otherwise they are either lying or else they are ignorant of the one of the basic disputes in the "climate Change" debate. Either way quoting them is dubious at best and misleading at worse. I am not "stirring people up" by drawing their attention to a very basic way of identifying web-sites, articles or blogs which should be avoided like the plague. Or is it right that people should be allowed to be mis-led wthout a proper warning ? .
-
Well done in ignoring the facts and trying to make it personal. .
-
The "hockey-stick". As soon as you read an article or a blog which states it is wrong, then that is an easy, sure, sign that the article writer or blogger is either deliberately misleading people or downright lying. The FALSE claims that the hockey-stick is wrong have been dealt with again and again, indeed I heard a new description for these sort of arguments today - "zombie-arguments" - because they have been killed off so many times before, but keep on coming back. Please see, as examples ; http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climat..._2008_final.pdf http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462 http://www.realclimate.org/ http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/quick/ The ability of people here to cut and paste articles which have deliberately mislead them is amazing. Why do they seem to think that serious scientists and governments have failed to check these oh so popular claims ? Why do they think that somehow all the serious scientists are standing round a corner having a good laugh at everyones' expense ? What makes people believe that article writers and bloggers who spread deliberate disinformation are somehow more to be trusted than the vast majority of the world's scientists and governments ? Please, check the above sites, then go back to the article writers and bloggers and ask them if they have read up the real science which they have misrepresented. Ask them why they are deliberately lying to people. Ask them why they have failed to affect the science and are reduced to lying to people ? As soon as you actually appreciate that there are so many sites churning out these lies, then you should appreciate how rotten the PR campaign is. It is not done innocently, it is deliberate and is making fools of those people who think that what they are reading is science, whereas it is actually deliberate falsehoods and PR puffery. .
-
Thank-you for those people replying to my last post for demonstrating the total lack of credible scientific objections to the Climate Change consensus. The inability of the "antis" supporters (whether scientific or lay) to actually challenge the consensus, and the way that previously "anti" governments have had to accept the scientific consensus is this marvellous "gorilla in the room" which the "antis" desparately avoid. Why ? Instead of wasting your time tilting at windmills, go back to all those marvellous "anti" pundits and ask them (indeed demand of them) WHY haven't they actually managed to enter the scientific debate ? Why have they failed to do the science ? Why do they waste their time on PR puffery rather than actually demonstrating their supposed "killer facts" ? People here should stop reacting to PR and start looking at the lack of scientific rigour on the side of the "antis". .