No-One Expects the Spanish Inquisition!
By Mitch Berg
The other day, we noted that the “universal consensus” behind Man-Made Global Warming is, er, not really universal.
And over at American Thinker, we also see that it’s not consensual:
First, the editors of APS newsletter Physics and Society invited [man-made global warming skeptic] Lord Monckton to present them a paper explaining his disagreement with the AGW findings of the IPCC. And the former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher happily accepted the offer, submitting a brilliant, must read article excoriating the UN lapdogs, both for their deliberately obscured methods and their gross exaggerations of green house gas impact on global temperatures.
But once Lord Monckton’s paper started getting attention?
But a few days later, Monckton’s paper was suddenly and inexplicably branded with these scurrilous prefacing words, emphasized in red:The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.”
An outlandish disclaimer, particularly considering that the paper had been reviewed by one of APS’s own scientists, and all requested clarifications were duly incorporated by the author.
In other words – if you can’t beat ’em, lie about ’em.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:11 pm
JPA:
Just cause it is so fun to kick a guy when he is down, here is a nice article on measurement precision. No sign of anything like your formula.
http://www.engr.mun.ca/~cdaley/1000/measurem.htm
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
JPA:
Come on, you were so eager to post. No response? Hoping this will slip off the front page?
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Come on, you were so eager to post. No response?
Now, now, Rick. Just because not everyone – myself included – can bring the level of obsession to hashing out these arguments as you do (much less with the monomaniacal devotion to nitpicky, strawman minutiae, at which you positively excel) doesn’t mean they don’t have a response.
JPA may well have had…I dunno, work to do, or dinner to cook…
…d’oh. Speaking of which…
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Mitch:
True enough, but tell me your not dying to know what is the ratio of a measurement and a precision and why it has to be an integer.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Rickie, there is absolutely no sense having a discussion with you – a person who does not understand the terminology and the language of the subject you purport to discuss. You understood nothing which I have said, because of your demonstrated lack of knowledge, much less expertise. No quotes pulled out of your a** can cover up the fact you do not understand the meaning of what is said therein.
There is no sense me telling you that something is “black”, because you do not understand what “black” is. As in “empirical” or a very simple, basic nomeclature x +/- y, as in x plus or minus y. Ratio, Rickie? Ratio? Dude…
You prove your naivete with every post. As you continue to do so, you just prove you are not only dense, you are stupid as well.
Poor Little Rickie, Wikipidea and Google are no substitute for brains and knowledge. Go back to school, and ease up on the drugs this time, would you?