The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Tomorrow's grim, global, green dictatorship > Comments

Tomorrow's grim, global, green dictatorship : Comments

By Viv Forbes, published 9/3/2018

The key slogan of the Green religion is

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. 12
  12. 13
  13. 14
  14. 15
  15. All
The flea says: Meteorologists are not climate scientists. “and ” one Meteorologist down playing climate change doesn't cut it. Really, is that the best you can do?”
You say stupid things, don’t you, flea?
If you read the scholarly critique by, Chuck Wiese, of the paper by Jennifer Francis, you will realise, if your mental limitations allow it, that Francis is out of her depth in meteorology, and her paper needs the attention of someone whose expertise is meteorology, like Wiese. You will say anything, won’t you, flea, no matter how ridiculous.
My impression is that you have not read the paper, and, of course, are not a meteorologist, are you, and would not have my analytical skill, to understand it, so you talk ignorant nonsense, having nothing sensible to contribute.
You have no science to support your backing of the climate fraud, so you act purely on your dishonesty.There is no science which would prove you honest, is there, flea? That is why you only ever post irrelevant material.
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 19 March 2018 11:28:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo

You say Chuck Wiese wrote a scholarly article, really.
For a scholarly article on science expect to see references to support an article.

"DEFINITIONS: Scholarly or peer-reviewed journal articles are written by scholars or professionals who are experts in their fields. In the sciences and social sciences, they often publish research results. Substantive news articles are reliable sources of information on events and issues of public concern."

Wiese is not a Climate Scientist, he is a Meteorologist; and hence, is not an expert in the area he wrote about. Where is his work published other than at contrarian blog sites?
There are no references for Chuck Wiese provided by google scholar. Your reference by Chuck Wiese is not even up to date in relation to Arctic Amplification, much research has been completed since 2012, the year of your reference.

Leo you stated:

"... Jennifer Francis, you will realise, if your mental limitations allow it, that Francis is out of her depth in meteorology, and her paper needs the attention of someone whose expertise is meteorology, like Wiese."

Professor Jennifer Francis obtained a BA in Meteorology and extended her qualifications by obtaining a PhD in Atmospheric Sciences. Professor Francis has many research papers published; so, suggesting she is out of her depth in relation to meteorology is completely farcical.

So the 80,800 references provided by google scholar on Arctic Amplification don't count?

You really are quite amusing; Leo, in trying to defend the indefensible.
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 20 March 2018 8:37:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The flea says:” ; Leo, in trying to defend the indefensible.”
Fraser produced a paper on Arctic Amplifification, which Wiese showed, in detail, was wrong.
The flea attempted to turn this into a consideration of whether Wiese’s article is scholarly, and avoids the question of whether Fraser’s paper is flawed.
The flea has posted reference to a stack of links on Google Scholar, with no explanation of their relevance to the correctness of Fraser’s paper, or any criticism of Wiese.I am not defending anything. I have shown Fraser’s paper to be wrong, and the flea has no answer.
We can only assume he is using his usual ploy of posting irrelevance, because he has no answers. His abysmal ignorance of science is largely related to his refusal, or inability, to take relevance of material into account.
He has not stated why he thinks any reference he has posted affects the correctness or otherwise of the paper.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 21 March 2018 6:14:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The flea says :” , you keep using the word "fraud"; but, where is it really emanating from?
It emanates from the fraudulent actions of yourself and other supporters of the assertion that global warming is caused by human emissions, when you can reference no science to show any measurable human effect on climate. The fraud is the representation of something to be true which is known to be untrue.
The flea’s term, “denier” is fraudulent, because, when asked for the science, alleged to be “denied”, he is unable to supply it, because it does not exist.The fraud promoters have no science to deny.
You understand the emanation of fraud, now, flea, from yourself and the other fraud promoters? You tell lies, then show your dishonesty, when asked to justify your assertions.
The flea’s thinking is so addled, that, on another thread, he asked me to supply details of convictions for fraud, to justify my assertions of fraud. How ridiculous is that?
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 22 March 2018 3:08:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Flaming again, Leo.

A very unimpressive way to try and make your point.
Google scholar will provide reliable information; unlike blog sites.
Posted by ant, Thursday, 22 March 2018 8:08:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, flea, as usual, no science. You do not know any, and cannot find any,to support your false assertions, but you make a baseless accusation of flaming, because it is all a dishonest fraud supporter who has cornered himself with his lies, as you have, can do
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 22 March 2018 10:25:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. 12
  12. 13
  13. 14
  14. 15
  15. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy