|
Post by helen on Sept 8, 2010 21:19:30 GMT 1
It's up to you R-Smith to show that the evidence presented is invalid in some way. That's how rational arguments work.
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 8, 2010 21:25:52 GMT 1
I don't believe you should judge everyone by your own standards (why were you standing for election by the way - wasn't the salary and expenses was it? This latter could add up to quite a package from your neck of the woods).
And this from a chap that believed 'eco-hippies got DDT banned and caused 2 million deaths a year'
DDT is banned for agricultural use - not against malaria outbreaks/ mosquitoes. A very easy fact to check.
|
|
|
Post by helen on Sept 8, 2010 21:35:27 GMT 1
No one was discussing Strangford anything, but what ever, you have posted no supporting figures on anything, you never do. Give one example of a set of called for figures on an issue discussed that you have produced and cited sources that are easily available to anyone with an interest can prove.
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 8, 2010 21:46:35 GMT 1
This is why I have trouble accepting the statements of rsmith7 as fact. He has made so many over the last couple of days that can be shown to be untrue that I feel compelled to ask for evidence
0.2% of UK energy is from wind power - not true (2.5%) UK wind generation capacity is 10% - not true (misinterpretation of a paper discussing possible scenarios) Eco-hippies got DDT banned causing 2 million deaths per year - not true (world health organisation recommends use of DDT for some malaria/ Mosquito outbreaks where mosquito resistance is not an issue)
But when I ask for references (as clearly I cannot just accept rsmith7's assertions), I am accused of diversionary tactics - surely that is what the accusation itself is?
|
|
|
Post by helen on Sept 8, 2010 21:51:43 GMT 1
havelock, this is the way R-Smith operates. I have to say that I love the way you have answered Mary at almost every turn, superb. R-Smith is something else. Enjoy!
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 8, 2010 22:10:36 GMT 1
Sorry, posted that on the wrong thread. "(why were you standing for election by the way - wasn't the salary and expenses was it?"
Nope, I had absolutely no chance of overturning the huge lib dem majority. I wanted to highlight some of the lunacy going on in this country and take those responsible to task publically. Read it - it's all online. p.s. An MP's salary would represent a significant drop in income.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 8, 2010 22:12:21 GMT 1
havelock the board fly. Has a ring to it eh?
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 8, 2010 22:45:11 GMT 1
havelock, this is the way R-Smith operates. I have to say that I love the way you have answered Mary at almost every turn, superb. R-Smith is something else. Enjoy! My strategy is to try to take the sting (and any personal animosity) out of the debate. I boringly ask for references, point out misunderstandings and am willing to admit that there is uncertainty. I know some are here because they want an argument - I want an informed debate so they're going to be disappointed with me
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 8, 2010 22:56:01 GMT 1
"I boringly ask for references, point out misunderstandings and am willing to admit that there is uncertainty."
You certainly do. Why don't you attempt to answer the questions I put to you on the energy thread. They're all logical, checkable and lead to a conclusion. Or are you afraid of that conclusion?
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 8, 2010 23:03:24 GMT 1
Because the questions you posed were political ones - not scientific.
I had already shown that your scientific assertions were false. I'll stick to what I'm comfortable with (science) and leave the politics for you to take to a more appropriate board.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 8, 2010 23:06:38 GMT 1
What are your scientific qualifications?
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 8, 2010 23:17:45 GMT 1
What are your scientific qualifications? That is immaterial as I am not using them as a crutch to support my arguments. I am allowing the science, facts, data to stand on their own merits.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 8, 2010 23:29:19 GMT 1
I've fully disclosed my credentials havelock. You're not a little green lobbyist are you? C'mon, we're all friends here. WHO'S BEEN TAMPERING WITH MY KARMA??? I had -8 before!!! Dammit
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 9, 2010 3:05:47 GMT 1
The Wegman and North Congressional Committees did not invite a paper boy to give evidence before them. They have also invited Hansen, Schneider, Mann etc. So I ask again, why believe an ex-mining exec over these people?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 9, 2010 7:42:38 GMT 1
Mann was "invited", as you described it, because it was his papers that were under attack! You should believe McIntyre because Wegman and North both upheld his criticisms and told Mann he should get some proper statistical expertise from professionals since he was clearly incompetent himself. The same has been said about the CRU's statistical "expertise" - non-existent! Pretending otherwise is futile i
Steve McIntyre has statistical expertise far beyond all of the people you mention. IPCC-style Climatology is merely number-crunching. Hansen, Schneider, Mann are ideologists first, enviromentalists second and statisticians nowhere ran.
What have you got against mining, anyway? Without mining we would not have all the useful minerals that have made our level of culture possible. Or do you wish to undermine that culture, get back to hunting and gathering or nomadism?
I guess you are just the green shill that Mr Smith Identified. Paid by the word are you? I can't believe any committee of congress would consider calling YOU as an expert witness, somehow, Havelock. You can't even read a google streetmap of Manhattan!
|
|