Climate change as a tool of tyranny

[F1fan]

The issue was interpretation. You didn't address that.

That’s why smart people defer to experts, and ignore contrary opinions from ordinary folk on the internet.

So you would defer to Molnar's expertise?

I don’t know his qualifications or attitudes.

 

[Pete in Panama]

What gets me is how you know everything and you aint in charge telling them experts how to do it right. Why aren't you in charge?

two reasons. one is that they haven't asked me. the other is that I'd turn them down because I don't want my pay cut down to what they can afford...

 

[Ebionite]

I don’t know his qualifications or attitudes.

Why would his attitudes be relevant to his expertise?

 

[exchemist]

A predictable response within the context of the religious prejudice of the United Nations.

But I thought you said the UN had no religious view?

 

[Ebionite]

But I thought you said the UN had no religious view?

That's not my problem.

 

[sayak83]

The scientific domain is inappropriate for the questions of ethics that follow from an accusation of lying.

We know how frivolous those accusations are, as, apart from making them in public forum of climate denier sympathizers, he made no attempt on complaining about them in courts or ethics watchdogs. And as the so called "climate gate" investigation showed, the accusation of climate scientists manipulating data had no basis in fact but was only there in the febrile imaginings of the conspiracy groups.

 

[Ebionite]

We know how frivolous those accusations are, as, apart from making them in public forum of climate denier sympathizers, he made no attempt on complaining about them in courts or ethics watchdogs. And as the so called "climate gate" investigation showed, the accusation of climate scientists manipulating data had no basis in fact but was only there in the febrile imaginings of the conspiracy groups.

The problem is that there's no impartial forum for looking at this issue without prejudice.

 

[F1fan]

Why would his attitudes be relevant to his expertise?

Because we see there are hired guns who want the money, not the duty to humanity.

two reasons. one is that they haven't asked me. the other is that I'd turn them down because I don't want my pay cut down to what they can afford...

Fine, take the money. Integrity isn't for evrybody.

 

[Ebionite]

Because we see there are hired guns who want the money, not the duty to humanity.

So how do you distinguish the hired guns from the scientists who deserve to be paid for their work?

 

[F1fan]

So how do you distinguish the hired guns from the scientists who deserve to be paid for their work?

The hired guns are hired guns, and the scientists do ethical work.

 

[Ebionite]

The hired guns are hired guns, and the scientists do ethical work.

Science is ethically agnostic. In your world they're all hired guns.

 

[sayak83]

The problem is that there's no impartial forum for looking at this issue without prejudice.

The truth is that Morners claims have long been debunked and he has been exposed as a deluded fraud a long while back.
The Spectator runs false sea-level claims on its cover | Mark Lynas and George Monbiot
The fact that you rely on such people who try to promote dowsing as science, create nepotistic journals that has to be closed down by the publishers for malpractice etc. is not good.

 

[F1fan]

Science is ethically agnostic. In your world they're all hired guns.

So you are now telling me what I believe? There's only one reason you would need to exagerate falsely, and that is because truth isn't on your side.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So how do you distinguish the hired guns from the scientists who deserve to be paid for their work?

There is this thing called "peer review".

 

[Ebionite]

So you are now telling me what I believe? There's only one reason you would need to exagerate falsely, and that is because truth isn't on your side.

No, it's implied by your own words and the fact that science is ethically agnostic.

 

[Ebionite]

The truth is that Morners claims have long been debunked and he has been exposed as a deluded fraud a long while back.

There is no reason to believe someone who calls others liars without evidence.

 

[exchemist]

There is no reason to believe someone who calls others liars without evidence.

In this case the evidence has been provided.

 

[Ebionite]

In this case the evidence has been provided.

You mean the irrelevant Hawaii tide data?

 

[exchemist]

So you would defer to Molnar's expertise?

Who’s Molnar?

 

[exchemist]

You mean the irrelevant Hawaii tide data?

No, the link @sayak83 posted.