Poirot

As has been pointed out ad nauseam, "science" does not consist of:
- ad hom
- circular argument
- appeal to absent authority
- not publishing data, and when asked for it
- resisting freedom of information requests
- hiding data
- saying you "lost" data
- refusing to publish code used to analyse data
- sneaky tricks like *reversing the signs* of temperature measurements
- citing thermometers in urban heat islands and imputing the measured higher temperatures to man's sin
- open-ended credulity in authority
- other flagrant manipulations of data and corrupt behaviour
- consensus
- groupthink.

Science ALWAYS rests on the data, NEVER on the technique you are employing and have NEVER defended, of looking to mere authority.

Therefore that is not "science", and you are deliberately lying, and the reason we know you are lying, is because you can't be doing it ignorance, because you've been called on the same flatly incorrect methodology over and over and over and over again in here. And you just keep repeating it.

Notice how NOTHING that Poirot says in this or any other thread offers any evidence or reason whatsoever for the proposition she is contending for?

Well guess what? That's not some kind of coincidence. All the warmists up to the highest levels share exactly the same methodology.

They have nothing, and never have had, but the $79 billion of money that government has stolen from the productive class to pay for this massive fraud.

Then when finally unable to defend their mendacity, Poirot has the gall to claim it's all a matter of opinion.

Well just because you don't care about honesty and truth, doesn't mean everyone is the same - especially not the large numbers of people who would be killed by the warmists' infantile deluded faith in total government control of everything.

Thank you JKJ

As the other Poirot said in "One-Two-Buckle-My-Shoe":

"I am methodical, orderly and logical; and do not like to distort facts to support a theory."

"The case is dried - and cut, Inspector."

Alice

An interesting thread, one that reminds me of the furore over whether or not smoking caused cancer. In that situation the Cigarette Companies lied continuously just as the Fossil Fuel Industry is currently lying.

Eventually it was proven that smoking did cause cancer but there are still deniers and the same will occur over global warming.

As I said recently, profits will always take precedence over prudence and there will always be idiots who 'think' the earth is flat and extreme weather events are not a warning sign!

Notice how David G does not actually provide any evidence or reason to support his belief that there is a problem of catastrophic man-made global warming that policy can improve?

Follow your own advice David. Follow the money. Governments have poured $79 billion into the global warming industry knowing that fools would use exactly the same methodology as you are using - looking uncritically at what government (not "science") is saying. They pay only for science *in favour of* the hypothesis. Answer this David: at what taxpayer-funded climate institute does a skeptic apply for work. That's right, governments pay NOTHING into critical analysis of the hypothesis which $79 billion has failed to find any evidence for, and destroy the careers of scientists who dared to question it. Government spending on global warming hysteria is in the ratio of 3500:1 of Big Oil, much of which is on renewables anyway.

That's where the so-called "consensus" is coming from. Governments have simply paid their dependent technicians to cook up global warming, and they've dutifully done it. The IPCC is not a scientific, it's a political body.

Let's get one thing straight. Emissions have risen to unprecedented levels while average global temperatures have not risen significantly in 15 years.

You are wrong David, and it's as simple as that. If you were right, the theorists you uncritically crawl to, would have to the predictions right.

The skeptics, UNPAID, unpicked the knitting of the warmist so-called scientists, and found it riddled with every kind of facile malfeasance.

And what is the answer of the warmist zealots to the truth they have no interest in?

"We don't have the data but if we did, it would prove what we adhere to regardless."

It's pathetic, it's sick, it's mediaeval, it's stone age thinking.

Got that peer-reviewed paper proving man-made catastrophic global warming yet fellahs? Not group-think. Actual data.

Why are you so zealous in your denial of global warming, Jardine? Why the desperation that you have to be right? Do you have shares in mining companies?

People who think in black and white are usually lacking in intelligence. Intelligent people usually keep a watching brief on developments in any issue and use their own intelligence to guide them.

Looking at the data including the most recent Report and seeing some of the horrific, severe weather events that have occurred during the last decade convinces me that there is a problem that is developing.

Shouldn't we err on the side of caution? Wouldn't that be smart?

No evidence, ho hum.

Notice how you assumed what's in issue, appealed to absent authority, confused weather with climate, ignored the fact that government has spent 3500 times more than mining companies, attempted to rely on personal abuse, and conveniently ignored the fact that even the IPCC admits that the globe hasn't significantly warmed in 15 years despite all its (wrong) predictions.

Let's face it, you're not the slightest bit interested in the truth or you would have noticed your superstitious belief system is corrupt and baseless.

At least the Big Banks are cheering on your pet policies because they want to make corrupt billions selling tax receipts in fake socialist markets which communists like you will later blame on unregulated capitalism. You don't even have that excuse. Sheer fatuous gullibility is all you've got.