Darc Knight
Investor not Trader
- Joined
- 28 February 2015
- Posts
- 1,211
- Reactions
- 607
Correct, and a few weeks ago I was a target of his nonsensical attcks.
I haven't read all the comments but agreed in principle that yes anyone should call out bullying and that should be done no matter who the bully is.
He is well credentialled to recognise weather events - no dispute.From one I consider an honest broker, on extreme weather events[/MEDIA]
It took a bit of digging to find that this video was published in 2013. That's not long ago in terms of weather or climate, but it is a long time in the story of an active area of scientific work such as attribution studies. Not saying that older studies are necessarily wrong or deliberately misleading, but they do need to be checked against more recent work., which is hard to do if you don't have dates to compare.I won't add too much more beyond the common knowledge in climate science that Pielke Jr is infamous for obfuscation and cherrypicking. His misuse of data on insurance costs, especially relating to Munich Re, is legendary in the climate science community.
I know of more recent references, but will have to spend some time to dig them out.It took a bit of digging to find that this video was published in 2013. That's not long ago in terms of weather or climate, but it is a long time in the story of an active area of scientific work such as attribution studies. Not saying that older studies are necessarily wrong or deliberately misleading, but they do need to be checked against more recent work., which is hard to do if you don't have dates to compare.
Meanwhile, the climate "community" should be treat with the suspicion of any group with a political agenda.
Treat both with suspicion.Of course, the "fossil fuel" community has no agenda ?
The best place to start for a quick overview of attribution is here. There are links to the 138 papers examined, but I never found WayneL's "honest broker" in the picture?It took a bit of digging to find that this video was published in 2013. That's not long ago in terms of weather or climate, but it is a long time in the story of an active area of scientific work such as attribution studies. Not saying that older studies are necessarily wrong or deliberately misleading, but they do need to be checked against more recent work., which is hard to do if you don't have dates to compare.
Are you "cynic" reincarnate?Obviously, it is easier to see a save the planet sign as being honest
Like the current ads on tv for Sodastream...
learn to be able to have an INFORMED opinion
Make your mind, fear propaganda..the fake/true news
One of the many ploys of those who cannot mount an argument based on climate science.Meanwhile, the climate "community" should be treat with the suspicion of any group with a political agenda.
Not at all my unhappy friend.One of the many ploys of those who cannot mount an argument based on climate science.
I have no care for baseless opinions which are equally devoid of logic.Not at all my unhappy friend.
I am 100% agreement with @qldfrog, all those with an agenda should be regarded with suspicion. Including CC gravy train riders, oil lobby, wind, solar, etc etc etc.
On the contrary.I dont walk to the beat of your drum who can never be convinced of anything outside if a specific narrative, rederob. There is enough discourse, sans your typical ad hominem elsewhere.
You have proven yourself unwilling for respectful and reasonable debate.
On the contrary.
I deal with reason.
You presented a link to a scientist well known for misuse of data, aside from the fact that what he presented was of little value given that so much more is available on the specific topic.
Get over yourself and present something relevant.
This can be a bit of a trap Rob, it is a feature of the forum which has mixed blessings. I have come to love it. If I have to leave a post half way and do something, I don't lose the post draft, even if I turn my computer off. The flip side is sometimes extra stuff is there and unseen, that can be a bit of a whoops sometimes.Somehow my computer posted a draft after the original, and I only write directly into a thread, so I have deleted this post.
No, I only read actual climate science literature.Have you read Ian Plimer's book Heaven+Earth?
funny thread
As usual a great detailed point by point rebuttal. And of course so was the next video you cited.
The facts. The evidence. The science.
The Real science done by real scientists rather than the range of easily disproven assertions trying to create a new reality.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?